Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Xerographica

Reason: Continuing WP:NPA, WP:POINTy and non-good faith comments despite repeated messages and warnings: Start of recent history:

Diffs and extended history
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1] – Starting point of edits following block for NPA. Instituted 8 January and ended 22 January: Xerographica's remarks: (Notes: Words in bold was made in AfD comments. (In one instance he did a bold/all caps SHOUT.) Xerographica frequently uses ellipsis (...) in comments, but not to signify removed wording (I read them as pauses). Ellipsis added by me (as omitted material) are bracketed thus [...].) 22 January [2] – "If you don't understand ... you have not shared a single concern...." In response to my remarks about editing behavior. 23 January [3] – "Here's my problem. Where are your bricks? Where are ANY of your bricks? You removed all my bricks [...] ...but then you never added any of your own. How is that a "good or helpful" method of building an encyclopedia? Show me how to build an encyclopedia [...]. Don't just talk about building an encyclopedia...for once just do it. Then, and only then, will I consider the possibility of giving any weight to your feedback." In response about my remarks about building WP. [4] – "Have you read through all the reliable sources on the benefit principle entry?" In response to User:Morphh's remarks about the Tax article. [5] – "Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary ... Have you read through all the reliable sources?" In response to my remarks about off-topic nature of added material. [6] – "Let me know when you thoroughly read them so that we can have an informed discussion on the topic." A reply to Morphh's comment about reading/glancing at material. [7] – "If you want to "balance" this article then DIY and BUILD a criticism section. [In response to me; then:] "SPECIFICO, yes...because Brandeis and DeVito were making the same exact argument as a Nobel Prize winning economist. If you insist on editing economic entries...then why not concentrate on reading reliable economic sources for once?" In response to SPECIFICO. [8] – "Like I said on my talk page, once I see evidence of Rich actually building the encyclopedia...as in building actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is...then, and only then, will I consider giving any weight to his words." And, "[...] If you, for once, actually look through the reliable sources, then you will find the expressions "other people's money" and "four ways to spend money"...and perhaps a few more. But because Wikipedia is not a dictionary...the focus of this entry is the concept that the reliable sources discuss. So please focus on what the reliable sources have to say about the CONCEPT and NOT THE TERM ITSELF." Both remarks directed to SPECIFICO. (A follow-up remark by Xerographica in this thread is here: [9].) [10] – "Strongly agree. It's nice to assume good faith...but having to constantly clean up after editors who do not understand the concepts that they are editing is a colossal waste of time/energy." A response in a CIR discussion. [11] – "Here's a bit of insight. Chances are pretty good that the passage came from the internet. So just click and drag your cursor over some of the text in order to highlight it, right click on the highlighted text and then click "Search Google for..."." In response to SPECIFICO's remark about no source for a quote.' January 24 [12] – "Rich, why would it be better handled in the theory of taxation? You're the one engaging in disruptive editing by engaging in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS. If you dispute any of the content then please create a section and share your concerns. We will discuss the content problems like reasonable editors. You're not assuming good faith by implying that I've added content that is not based on RS." In response to my remark about quotefarming. [13] – "I'm engaging in disruptive behavior by adding content that is supported by RS? It's not disruptive when you engage in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS? Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I WAS the one who was headed towards an unpleasant outcome while you, the person who actually IS engaging in disruptive behavior, suffered absolutely no negative consequences." In response to SPECIFICIO's remarks about disruptive editing. [14] – "Rich, you added tags which indicate that certain sections may contain original research. I know that the content is based on RS. My question is...why do you not know that? Have you read the RS?" A further response (labeled as a new section) to my remarks about quotefarming. [15] – "You're telling me that I'm doing it wrong...but can you give me a single example of where you've done it right? If you genuinely want to improve this article...then why don't you just do so? Build the article rather than simply tear it down. Improve the article. Make it better. Add more value for readers. But that would require reading numerous reliable sources. So yes, the issue really IS whether you have read the reliable sources. Tell me what the RS say about the subject. Tell me EXACTLY where there's a disparity between what I've added and what the RS say." In response to my comments about NOR. January 25 [16] – "Please assume good faith by adding citation requests to any material that you believe to be original research." In response to my template message about adding unsourced material. [17] – "When notable economic concepts are deleted...then it's no wonder that editors with knowledge of economics see little value in making the effort to contribute." In response to User:Bwilkins' remark about consensus and notability. January 27 [18] – "Please copy and paste the exact policy rule that you are referring to." In response to User:Arthur Rubin's comments about appropriate See also links. [19] – "If you had actually read the entire policy you would have read this: [...]." In response to Rubin's comments on the See also's posted by Xerographica. [20] – "[...] I contributed while the reader simply vandalized. Do YOU not understand the relevance of the links? If you do not, then let me know which ones you struggle to understand and I will be happy to include a note next to those links." In response to User:72Dino, referring to Rubin as "the reader". [21] – "I'm trying my hardest to help you understand the relevance of the links...but you're not interested in answering a ridiculously simple and straightforward question." In response to 72Dino's inquiry about adding See also links (following on previous comment). [22] – "Comment. Clearly the AFD process needs to occur at the relevant projects...not in a general area. It's hardly a prefect solution...but it should hopefully cut down on editors editing well [[WP:COMPETENCE|outside their areas of expertise]]." Comment in an AfD discussion. [23] – "[...] That's why I understand the relevance. The question is...why don't you understand the relevance? Unless you tell me what you DO understand...I can't possibly discern where the gap in your knowledge is. [...] WE can't possibly improve the article if you do not understand all the relevant and important concepts involved." In response to 72Dino's follow-up comment, expressing no desire to make further comment or continue discussion thread. January 29 [24] – Removed {{verification failed}} template placed by Arthur Rubin, with edit summary of "[...] please stop wasting my time" [25] – "If you had actually read the reliable sources then you would have known that this article has always been about the concept." AfD comment, unclear to whom addressed, but edit history indicates Rubin. [26] – "Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article?" Comment to Rubin in AfD discussion. [27] – "[...] My dispute with him is that he rarely rarely ever reads the relevant reliable sources...but he edits the content anyways. For an example of how it's supposed to work...look on the talk page of public choice theory. You can see some exchanges between Thomasmeeks and myself. That kind of exchange has never ONCE occurred with Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO. If it has actually occurred with Rubin or the others...then I'm sure Rubin would be able to provide one such example." In response to User:CarrieVS who had said: "[...] And if we do discuss it here, we will be strictly discussing the content in question, and not anyone's general conduct or editing behaviour." [28] – "Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks." Comment added to AfD discussion. [29] – "Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics." Comment in AfD discussion. [30] – "[...] So if you dispute a point or argument that I make...then please bring your own reliable sources to the table. Show me the evidence that you've actually spent your own time researching the topic. Thanks." Comment in new section, perhaps in response to Morphh. 30 January [31] – "[...] ...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. [...]" Comment in an AfD discussion. [32] – "Can you cite the policy that states that secondary sources are required to establish the relevance of a passage from a primary source? If you're concerned with blockquotes and copyright issues...then you should probably head over to the Wikiquote project and start removing quotes. But if you're genuinely interested in improving this article...then you're welcome to add some reliably sourced prose." In response to User:Volunteer Marek about concerns with blockquotes and possible copyright issues. [33] – "[....] Have you read any reliable sources on this concept? In other words, what are you basing your argument on?" In another response to Volunteer Marek. [34] – "Please copy and paste the passages from those policies that you think are relevant here." In another response to Volunteer Marek about OR and SYNTH concerns. [35] – "[...] Regarding your ultimatum...can you please explain to me what exactly is your own contribution to the improvement of this article? Because I'm just not seeing it." In response to Volunteer Marek comments about secondary sources (unclear what "ultimatum" is being referred to). [36] – "[...] Except, you've removed nearly all the relevant reliably sourced content...and now it's little more than a dictionary entry. Are you going to build it up into an encyclopedic entry? Or is your contribution simple to tear down other people's modest, albeit highly imperfect, efforts?" In further response to Volunteer Marek. [37] –"[...] Again, please copy and paste the exact relevant policy passage." In further response to Volunteer Marek's comments about blockquotes, OR and SYNTH. 31 January [38] – "Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... [...]. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it." In response to Volunteer Marek's comment about secondary sources and quotefarms. [39] – "If you think quotes are copyright violations then go head over to the Wikiquote project to inform them that they are violating copyright. If you do not see a connection between the quote and the topic...either the connection does not exist...or maybe the connection does exist but you're just not seeing it. Which one do you think it is? Well...given that it was your idea that this topic be redirected to TOC...I'm pretty sure I know which one it is. Have you ever considered reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topic? " In response to Rubin's comments about quotefarms and possible copyright violations. [40] – "If you truly believe that it's a personal attack to ask another whether they've read the material then update the policy accordingly." In response to my template message (modified) about NPA. [41] – Quotation omitted. Bringing up his previous 2 week block, asked for clarification in NPA policy specifying that particular comments be considered disruptive or not. [42] – "And how many of those editors use reliable sources as the basis of their disagreements?" In response to Volunteer Marek's comment that many editors were disagreeing with Xerographica, while his response was WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [43] – "If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on [AfD page] with an informed comment." In response to User:Lukeno94's observation that other editors could very well be economics majors or other types of experts. [44] – "Have you read the reliable sources?" In response to Rubin's comment about material not in the sources. [45] – "Morphh, I created a section in the body for the Principles of taxation but, as usual, Rich and Rubin removed it. I moved the section over to my subpage...[...]. Rich and Rubin arbitrarily remove any content that I add to a page...so you'll have to add it yourself." A second comment following the one above. [46] – "Great, so contribute the reliably sourced content." In response to Rubin's comment about what certain material says or does not say. [47] – "Can you link to a single article where you and Rubin have contributed actual content? As I've told you countless times...if you disagree with my meager efforts to build an article...then please show me how it's supposed to be done. Clearly, based on numerous reliable sources, the benefit principle and the ability-to-pay are significant tax concepts. Clearly they are missing from this article. Clearly I've made an effort to include them. Clearly you've disagreed with my effort. So please, for once, show me how it's supposed to be done." In response to my comment about the above remark. 1 February [48] – "How can you say that the addition of the passages count as original research if you aren't even able to articulate or identify what, exactly, is original?" In response to Volunteer Marek's remark about needing sources that directly support the material. [49] – "A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge." Reply to comment in AfD discussion by User:Lukeno94 about consensus and relevance of an essay in discussed article. [50] – "Hi, can you please lock [...] again? SPECIFICO is again [diff omitted] removing entire sections of reliably sourced material without bothering to share his concerns on the talk page. Thanks." Request posted on User:Bbb23's talk page. [51] – "An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency." In response to Lukeno94's comment about Xerographica's comments on an article talk page. [52] – "Again, as I've told you countless times, if you have concerns with content, then please post your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks." In response to SPECIFICO's comment about OR and possible ANI complaint. [53] - "Hi, can you please link me to the instance that you are referring to? Thanks." In response to User:Little green rosetta's (LGR) comment about multiple warnings given regarding AGF. [54] – "If he wants to challenge the content then why doesn't he add "citation needed" tags? Isn't he failing to assume good faith?" In response to User:Writ Keeper's message about Xerographica's inappropriate behavior. [55] – "Can you please assume good faith and create a new section to share specific concerns? In other words, I'd like to improve this page but you're not offering specific suggestions. Thanks." In response to Rubin's comment about an unspecified article edit. [56] – "If you'd like to offer some clarification regarding what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack"...then that would be awesome. Please share your thoughts on the personal attack talk page... [link omitted] Thanks." In response to Bwilkins' remark that 'Pretty much' of Xerographica's entire contribution list was 'an instance' of his BATTLEGROUND behavior (brought up by LGR). [57] – Entire quote omitted. Is in a new section, but includes "I'm the only one doing any "building" while there are plenty of editors simply "demolishing" anything that I build." [58] – Entire quote omitted. Is in response to User:Famspear's advice about article improvement, but includes "You won't find a single contribution where they've improved on my prose or added their own prose or added citations or added relevant sources. How can I hope to collaboratively build a project with editors who are clearly far more interested in tearing it down?" and "[...] have these editors show the initiative to build up rather than simply tear down." [59] – "If you are correct that these editors are genuinely interested in removing OR regarding the opportunity cost of war...then why haven't they made any effort to remove this section... [...] Let's see how sincere they are at removing OR when it comes to [...]." In response to LGR's comment about OR. 2 February [60] – "[...] Regarding your prose, if I had to choose between sharing with someone else the actual passages...or your prose...it wouldn't even be a difficult choice. But it's doubtful that I could do a better job. [...]." In response to my explanation of removal of unsourced and non-prose-summarized content. [61] – "He was talking about We, the People. Have you read it? Do you know what the plot of the story is?" In response to Rubin's comment about 'tax choice' not being in the referenced short story. [62] – (5 paragraphs added, partial quotes provided without [...] "And if you had actually read through all the sources, then you would have found plenty of arguments against tax choice. The fact that you didn't...clearly indicates that, either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you haven't sufficiently researched this topic to be making substantial edits to the content." "I very reluctantly have to admit that some of your edits haven't been half bad. But please read more and edit less." In response to my remarks about article edits. 3 February [63] – "What's the argument of Scroogenomics? Have you read the reliable sources that I just added to this entry?" In response to my remark about source and See also entry did not pertain to the article. [64] – (4 paragraphs added, only the first is provided) "I've asked other editors if they've read the reliable sources because their edits did not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. If you think it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources...then change the policy to match your preferences. Because, as it stands, the policy does not state that it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources." In response to my remarks about improperly asking (and assuming) about other editors not reading material. [65] – "No, that was sarcasm. Progress would be for you to stop being disruptive." In response to SECIFCO's remarks about OR. [66] – "Are you interested in improving this article? So far it seems like your only interests have been to delete it and to accuse me of soapboxing. From my perspective, somebody cannot fundamentally improve an article if they don't have a firm grasp on the relevant concepts." In response to User:Capitalismojo's comment about the purpose of talk pages and the comments of other editors. 4 February [67] – "You're completely abusing the "no original research" policy. [....] If you don't even have a basic grasp of what foot voting is...then please research the topic until you do. Until then your edits and comments will continue to be disruptive." In response to my remarks about OR. [68] – "This was your edit summary, "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." So again...why did you remove the opportunity cost of war from this article but not from the other two articles? " In response to SPECIFCO's remark about an Edit summary. [69] – "I'm trying to improve this article by including a section on the opportunity costs of war. But I can't do that if SPECIFICO is going to arbitrarily remove it. How do I know his decision was arbitrary? Because he has not removed the "OR" from the other two articles. Given that he has not removed those other sections, clearly he's not genuinely concerned with OR...instead, his interest is to be disruptive." In response to my remark about Xerographica's improper remark (quoted above). [70] – "[... referencing a warning I had posted on his talk page] Hey Rich, if you truly believe that these are personal attacks, then why not improve this article by updating it to match your preferences?" [71] – "[...] I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article. That's a problem. [...]" In reply to critical comments from User:Calton. [72] – "It's not a complaint. It's my sincere request that you update the personal attack policy to match your preferences. That way you'll spend all your time warning other editors that it's a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive." In response to my remark about the "Hey Rich" posting on the NPA talk page (referenced above.) 5 February [73] – "It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you. Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim. But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor? When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject. And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks... [...] Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject." In response to Calton's remarks that amateur reading is not education. [74] – "[...] If somebody hasn't made a single positive contribution to an article...then it's really hard for me to assume good faith when they make numerous negative contributions to an article. And it's even harder to assume good faith when they remove entire sections and continue to insist that the article should be deleted. When their actions and their words are perfectly aligned...then there's no doubt in my mind that their intention is not to improve the article." Part of the response to Bwilkins' observation about Xerographica's "so fuck you" attitude. [75] – "[...] Once [SPECIFCO] makes his first positive contribution...then, and only then...will I consider the possibility that he's interested in improving this article." In response to Capitalismojo's observations about Xerographica seeing bad faith because some other article had not been edited. 6 February [76] – "Rubin, it took me at least an hour to thoroughly read the paper. But you removed it FOUR minutes after I added it to the references. How many times am I going to have to ask you to read more and edit less? First you read the paper and then you can make the argument that it's only indirect. Otherwise, how can we have an informed discussion when you haven't even read the material? Please stop your disruptive editing." Self-evident. [77] – "The topic of the article is the TV show and a strong recurring theme in the TV show is rent seeking. Have you even seen the show?" In response to my comment about the topic of the article being the TV show, and nothing more. [78] – "Yeah, you really nailed my logic there. Why don't you watch the show and then come back so we can have an informed discussion on whether breastfeeding or rent-seeking is more relevant." In response to my remark about keeping his inquiries about seeing or reading material to himself. (Referenced above.) [79] – "The editors review each letter and they have complete discretion over which letters are published. You never answered my question regarding Haldeman. Again, why did you remove his story from the "Further reading" section? Regarding Bird & Tsiopoulos...how do you know that Rubin is correct? Have you read the paper?" In response to rationale of keeping letters to the editor and other off-topic links out of article. [80] – "So according to [WP] policy, letters to the editors and guest posts are not reliable sources? I read over [...] RS policy...but I must have missed it. Can you copy and paste where it says that? Thanks." In response to User:Orangemike's observations about including posts mentioned above in article. 7 February [81] – "What, exactly, is your positive contribution to this article? I searched for, found, thoroughly read over and added specifically relevant material to this article. But rather than help further develop the article, you simply removed the material and are now telling me what I must do in order to improve the article. If you're not willing to strain your brain in order to paraphrase long quotes, if you're not willing to make the effort to repurpose this article... if you're not willing to sacrifice alternative uses of your time in order to actually read the reliable sources...in other words...if you're not willing to WP:DIY...then please refrain from making negative contributions. Thanks." In response to Rubin's remarks about article editing. [82] – "Please "unbundle" your warning and specify exactly which part of my paragraph contains the personal attack. Thanks." In response to my template level 4 NPA warning that included the diff. [83] – "Can you whittle it down a little more?" In response to my quoting the particular language referred to in the above message. [84] – "So it wouldn't be a personal attack to tell another editor to WP:DIY?" In response to my remark that the entire comment to Rubin was improper. [85] – "Please copy and paste the relevant policy passage which states that letters published by editors are never reliable sources...except for the exception you noted. Thanks." In reply to Rubin's comment that LTE are not RS. [86] – "Is the purpose of Wikipedia to follow other editors around and undo their edits?" In reply to Bwilkins' remark about Xerographica's BATTLE mentality. [87] – "So if I followed you around deleting all the content that you contribute...oh wait...never mind." In response to Rubin's comment that removing inappropriate edits is proper. [88] – New section, not quoted, but contains remarks about Rubin, SPECIFCO and myself. 8 February [89] – Not quoted. Made in response to LGR's observations on his combative attitude. [90] – Not quoted. Further responses to LGR's observations. 9 February [91] – "They don't find their own sources and they don't read the sources that I find." In response to LGR's comment that we don't quiz editors on their competence or require them to read what others consider relevant. [92] – "[...] ...it's original research for you to allow Rubin to remove Mitchell's passage from this article. [...]" In response to User:Fishicus' comments about OR. 10 February [93] – "Also, are you aware that WP:NAD|Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" Comment to Rubin. [94] – "[...] How did Rich find the footnote...but not the relevant passage? Let me guess...he simply searched the paper for "consumer sovereignty" rather than actually read through the paper in order to see if any of the material was relevant to the concept. This article is about the concept...not the term itself. Did you know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary?" In response to SPECIFICO's comment about a deletion I had made. [95] – "How do you know his edit is valid? Have you read the paper? Also, I'm still looking forward to your reply... " In response to SPECIFICO about an edit I had made. [96] – "You have no idea how ridiculously easy it is to prove that Rich's edit was nothing but disruptive. I just go to my database, search for "Rizzo" and then filter down to find the relevant passages... [text from a quote apparently found in a Google search] If you or Rich had actually read the paper then neither of you would be wasting my time with your disruptive editing." In response to SPECIFICO's comment that I am innocent of invalid editing until proven guilty. [97] – "[AfD/Freedom of choice.] Does this count as canvassing or appropriate notification?" – New section in talk page. Follow-on comments by other editors said 'canvassing'. (But the bell had been rung. In follow-on comment ([98]) he noted that notices were appropriate on Project pages, whereas this was an article talk page. But Xerographica argued that there was no difference between posting here vice a Project page.) [99] – "Ah yes, Rubin's Relentless Red Tape. We need a source about a source about a source about a source. You tightly tie your hands with ridiculous red tape so you can rationalize why you consistently fail to add any content to economic articles. Why don't you first read this source...and then tell me what additional sources you want me to fetch for you." In response to Rubin. [100] – "Fool me once, I'll assume good faith. Fool me twice, and AGF is no longer applicable. You, Rich and Rubin have consistently removed reliably sourced content and sources. AGF is no longer relevant...there's an obvious pattern of disruptive editing. Well...it's been obvious to me for a long time...but I don't see any evidence that your behavior will change any time soon. So eventually it will be obvious to other editors as well." In response to SPECIFICO's unsigned AGF 3 warning. [101] – Quote omitted. Paraphrase: 'You deleted quotes from an article I worked on, why didn't you remove quotes from this other article?' [102] – "So, are you going to delete the "Key excerpts" section from that other article? If not, then why not?" In response to User:72Dino's comments about typical article structure. Follow-on comment by Xerographica [103] thanked Dino for not deleting sections and trying to help him understand how WP works. [104] – "Please copy and paste exactly what it was that I said that you consider to be a personal attack." In response to my level 4 template message about NPA, in which I cited the diff and the passage which was improper. [105] – "[4th of 8 paragraphs, largely quoting a source] Over and over and over I've told you about the opportunity cost concept. But evidently you still don't get it." In response to Rubin's comment about a particular source. 11 February [106] – "[3rd of 4 paragraphs about his goals in editing this article] I've added numerous sections to this article...and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have deleted them. There are plenty of reliable sources...yet I do not see these editors going through the RSs and adding the relevant material to this article. Cutting content is easy, but contributing content takes effort. Building is always more of a challenge than simply tearing down. Because all these editors do is tear down...I've lost my good faith in them. Once they start actually building this article up...then, and only then, will my faith in them start to renew." In response to Capitalismojo's suggestions for article improvement. [107] – Refers to an addition he made last month with a Sesame Street U-tube piece. In my remark that his original addition was WP:POINTy, he said "To a certain extent...I'm happy to try and teach these concepts. But you haven't been willing to meet me half way. You never do your own homework. Instead, you expect me to jump through your hoops like some sort of circus clown. [...] " [108]. And then: "Thanks for the positive feedback...but your advice is a day late and a dollar short... [...] The thing is...there are other editors who could really benefit from your advice to "measure twice, cut once". I've been telling Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO to "read more, edit less". (At: [109].) 12 February [110] – "SPECIFICO and Rich...are you guys going to build this article up? If so, then you're more than welcome to thumb your nose at Erin's quality and reliably sourced contributions. If not, then please don't criticize other people's contributions if you're not willing to make better contributions yourselves. Thanks." In response to edits on article page. [111] – "Speaking of rude...why would Rich undo another editor's positive contribution to Erin's user page? Why not just allow Erin to decide for herself whether she appreciated Djweinberger's contribution?" Remark refers to a revert I did to User:Erinbarnes in which a new (SPA?) editor did revisions to same. [112] – "I have no problem engaging with them...my problem is that the ioby page would have been better off without their edits. They go around tearing down but they never build up. No worries, I'm sure they'll do it again. Hopefully, eventually, you'll see the pattern." In response to LGR's comment about SPECIFICO and myself. [113] – Quotation omitted. While comment references his creation of the article (copied from a userpage), it also references edits by Rubin, SPECIFICO and myself on other article pages. [114] – Quotation omitted. Comment is on an article talk page, is addressed to User:Hugo Spinelli, providing "context" about past incidents involving other articles. (This comment has been removed by me as WP:TPNO ([115]). [116] – "Rubin removed preference revelation from the "See also" section because he believes that it is "irrelevant". Given that he evidently feels qualified to remove the topic...he must be sufficiently familiar with both topics. Is this correct Rubin?" Self evident. [117] – "Of course it matters...given that you follow me around undoing my edits. So what part(s) of that passage do you not understand?" Comment in the above discussion.

Further edits and evidence worth considering:

• Xerographica brought up an ANI regarding SPECIFICO, Rubin and myself. Overall the discussion was more about his behavior. See: [118]."
• He developed a "to do list" (name changed after discussion) User talk:Xerographica/Archive 4#My To Do List as a WP:UP#POLEMIC during his block period.

Besides numerous warnings, there have been efforts to promote positive editing since block expired:

• User talk:Xerographica#Article creation break? – started by User:Lawrencekhoo
• User talk:Xerographica#Unnecessary war – Comments by me, as a comrade in arms.
• User talk:Xerographica#Military SMEs needed – Comment by me suggesting a change of focus to military topics.
• User talk:Xerographica#Change your approach – Comments by User:Little green rosetta
• User talk:Xerographica#Burden of proof on Tax choice – Comments by User:Writ Keeper
• User talk:Xerographica#Suggestion – Editor Review – Suggestion by me that he undertake WP:ER
• User talk:Xerographica#Last chance – Further comments by Little green rosetta.
• User talk:Xerographica#Extra training – Suggestion by me, as a former US Army NCO. If he had agreed, I would have assigned WP:ER.
• Additionally, I sought to give him input via (confused) and [[File:|25px|link=]] (facepalm). But even (raspberry) did not faze him.

Comments about his behavior, attitude, remarks, etc. have been added by various other editors in talk page commentaries. These diffs are not provided.

Final observations:

• WP:TE is perhaps the most pertinent essay for analyzing Xerographica's behavior. I think that 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, and 2.14 are directly on point.
• WP:DE applies, particularly in terms of consensus building and ignoring community input.
• While WP:GRIEF pertains to spammers, the various stages of grief apply to Xerographica.

As the last diff (of 13 February) is the latest NPA, following repeated level 4 final warnings, this history is submitted for consideration.

– S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting the diffs above, not to hide them but for the sake of brevity. That is a longer list of material than I've ever seen on ANI. Many will just TLDR and not even look at it. I'm sure an admin will say the same that excessive material is not likely to be looked at. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the forbearance of many editors has enabled user Xerographica's abusive edit list to achieve unusual length. A shorter list is given here [119] [120] SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin: I made it through Feb. 05, and I'm just not really seeing anything other than an editor who is obviously frustrated, and should probably communicate a little more level-headed...but nothing crazy. Definitely not personal attacks. What are you wanting the admins to do with this? Ditch ∝ 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• An WP:RFC/U might be better equipped to handle this than ANI (has one been done already? Did I miss it?).--v/r - TP 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

User Xerographica has already been blocked four times for similar behavior. [121]

The block log indeed shows action, some quite recent, and the subject's talk page is a train-wreck (deserves credit however for not "scrubbing" it, like some I could name) and I'd say the complaint is valid, taken all together. Agree that an Rfc/U may be the next step here. Good call on the hat also. Jusdafax 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Yes, I did consider RFC/U, but felt it would not result in definitive action. The result would be a "Nah-nah-nah, you tried to get me!" from Xerographica. The alternative, next stronger stop would be ArbCom, but that was not appropriate course of action either. As for the non-NPA nature of his remarks, I've felt he was "Borderlining" to an extreme, and thereby failing to work towards consensus. (And thanks for the hatting.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is certainly a two way street. But in my defense...I'd like to think that I'm improving and "evolving" over time to more closely conform to Wikipedia behavioral standards. For example...

1. Recently I have been seeking feedback from neutral editors...User_talk:Little_green_rosetta#ioby
2. Since this warning by Writ Keeper...User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice I have not undone a single edit by Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO
3. And as Ditch Fisher noted above, I am no longer engaging in personal attacks

Regarding my own complaint...well...if you've read over the evidence shared by Rich...it's clear that my biggest complaint is that they make substantial edits to pages without first reading the reliable sources. Therefore, given that their edits are not based on reliable sources...then clearly they violate the no original research policy. Unfortunately, it's not that clear to outside editors. I'm fairly confident though that it's just a matter of time before enough other editors start to catch on.

Additionally, these editors are engaging in Wikipedia:Harassment. They follow me around undoing my edits. For example, how in the world would Rich have known to undo my edit on the House_of_Cards_(U.S._TV_series)? That's just too much of a coincidence. But doesn't the volume of evidence that Rich shared speak for itself? How could there possibly be so much editing overlap unless they watch my contributions? Our interests truly are not that aligned. If they were, then I wouldn't have to try and persuade them to read the reliable sources. --Xerographica (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP: Is WP:GAMING going on in Xerographica's remarks? I.e., 'Playing the victim' by saying these editors are harassing him. I.e., 'Playing policies against each other' by saying my complaint is a two way street – e.g., that he might have a complaint about me? I.e., "sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected" when he says that "other editors [will] start to catch on" to his POV regarding OR, SYN, RS? Other bits of gaming: 1. Ditch Fisher read through 5 February and did not say Xerographica was no longer engaging in PA. 2. It is clear to Xerographica alone that other editors are not reading the RS and are therefore engaged in OR. 3. The "recent" requests for feedback were not to evaluate his behavior, but to look at edits made by other editors. (Nevertheless, as the requests were made to Little green rosetta, I certainly accept the good faith of the requests in and of themselves.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – This is interesting. While this discussion is going on, Xerographica continues to make remarks about other editors. [122] – "Hugo Spinelli built the article up, and Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO are trying to tear it down. SPECIFICO is the one who nominated it for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freedom_of_choice. Where's their positive contributions? Where are the reliable sources that they've brought to the table? I know it's hard to see a pattern with so few instances. But thanks for taking a look at it." In a comment made to User:Writ Keeper referring to Freedom of choice. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it "gaming" to share my side of the story? And it clearly is harassment. Out of all the articles mentioned in your evidence...how many did you edit before I did?

And Rubin even admitted that he's harassing me...User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#Stalking...

If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too.

I deserved to be "stalked" because my area of interest is public choice? The only other active editor who is also knowledgeable about public choice theory is Thomasmeeks. Here's what he had to say about the subject...Talk:Benefit_principle#Recognition_to_creator_of_this_article

Some tough things have been said above about aspects of this article. The Talk page is just the place for such. At the same time, I think the harshest critic would agree that the subject is very appropriate for WP and probably long overdue. Identifying that gap and trying to plug it is IMO a not inconsiderable achievement of User:Xerographica, even at the cost of falling well short of what are likely X.'s own standards and risking the kind of responses as above. Sometimes that's the cost of being WP:BOLD. That's not to condone any avoidable lapses of course but to at least keep them in proportion.

X. has to balance his own priorities & might have enough on his plate to keep way busy in other activities. Still, if time & inclination allowed, X. might be best qualified to improve the article in the near term. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is really only going to end when the three of you stick to editing articles that interest you enough to actually read about. --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Others have repeatedly suggested to X that, with a fraction of the time and energy he puts into his talk page and other non-article messages here, he could instead be improving the articles. He states that he is familiar with the various subjects and the associated literature. Over and over, he's been asked to use properly-sourced material, properly-cited to create encyclopedic prose content that would prove his talk page assertions correct, while improving WP. Sad to say, I can't recall any example of him simply citing the text of a reliable source which would support the specific content he insists should belong in any of these articles. Other users have patiently tried to mentor and encourage X to become a constructive contributor, but for whatever reason this has not happened. Given his recidivist history, I am afraid that only a lengthy block is going to give him the time to reconsider his perspective and priorities about participation here. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? Seriously? You can't recall this... Talk:Tax_choice#Kennett_failed_verification.3F? Let me know if that doesn't jog your memory and I'll be happy to provide plenty more examples. Also, speaking of jogging your memory...don't forget about this...Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's because it failed verification. I'm not going to say that you didn't read it, but no one with good knowledge of English who did read it would find it supported the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – I ask that Xerographica's comments directed towards SPECIFICO's past editing not become a distraction from the main issue. – S. Rich (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried taking these pages off of my watchlist, but the dispute seems to have followed me regardless, so I guess I should just drop a note here. From my somewhat limited prior experience with this dispute, it appears to me that Xerographica is very passionate about this subject, adn has good intentions. That's not in and of itself a problem, but who was it that compared strong opinions on Wikipedia to tigers in a zoo? It comes to mind. The things that I had an impression are the real problems are these: a) Xerographicahas little sense of discrimination as far as material that should be in the article as opposed to material that should stay out. It appears that, in Xerographica's mind, a reliable source guarantees inclusion in an article; any edit that removes sourced content is a negative edit, no matter why the material was in fact removed. See Talk:Tax_choice#Eisenhower_vs._Hitler? for an example of this. Second, and more importantly, it seems that Xerographica doesn't quite understand original research and especially synthesis; it seems to me that Xerographica is, perhaps unknowingly inserting their own inferences and conclusions between sourced bits of information. An example of what made me think this way is at User_talk:Xerographica#Burden_of_proof_on_Tax_choice. Basically, this unfamiliarity with Wikipedia norms is leading to Xerographica's frustration with the other editors, who are objecting to their edits for seemingly incomprehensible reasons, causing the lashouts. Unfortunately, because Xerographica is so passionate about this issue, they're not particularly willing to accept criticism, and also prone to edit-warring and other seemingly aggressive behavior. The edit-warring is what drew my attention to Xerographica in the first place, but to their credit, I have not heard that they continued to edit-war after I issued a warning. Again, I haven't made a comprehensive survey of Xerographica's edits, so I can't say if this is a consistent problem, or if this is the same issues that others have noted. This is just what I've observed in the conflicts I've been exposed to, and what seems like the root of the problem to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe WP:TIGERS is what you were looking for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I had one rather strange and frustrating interaction with X on electoral fusion; I think the portion of Writ Keeper's comments beginning "Second, and ..." and ending "... aggressive behavior" are an excellent diagnosis of the situation and of X's behavior. --JBL (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that is part of the problem. However, while it's perfectly understandable that a new editor might start out that way, most will listen to advice and guidance and develop the ability to work within WP norms and protocols. In X's case, however, despite a lot of guidance and supportive dialogue from a number of capable editors and experienced mentors, X has simply failed to progress beyond the dysfunctional behavior. In light of this, the situation will not be remedied by more of the same mentoring or guidance. Those have been demonstrated to be ineffective. A significant block is much more likely in my view to have a beneficial effect. SPECIFICO talk 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt a block will have a beneficial effect on Xerographica's editing. Quite the opposite, if anything. Of course, there is a time when it ceases to matter what will improve Xerographica's editing; whether we've hit that point, I don't know and don't really have an opinion. While we're on the subject of sanctions, a well-targeted topic ban might be more effective, but who knows? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Observations: 1. The very day the tiger was released from his cage/block, he started clawing about the museum. (Indeed, the block was extended because he would not retract his fangs when appealing the block.) 2. I think a ban would have to be pretty extensive to be effective. Namely, anything in the economics category. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Economics" was what I was thinking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding improvements in my editing. Here are three of my most recent articles...
• The Other Invisible Hand
• Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
• Scroogenomics

Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up? My contributions are certainly far far far from perfect...but can you name any editors who are actively creating/improving economic articles? I mentioned Thomasmeeks already...and recently Hugo Spinelli did a great job with Freedom of choice. Yet look on the talk page to see his difficulties with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO. They criticize and tear down other people's efforts but I've never once seen them build up any article. I can share plenty of articles that I've made a highly imperfect effort to try and build up. Yet where's a single article that these three editors have significantly improved? Where's an article where they've done it better? Doesn't anybody think it strange that these editors cannot provide a single example of an article that they've built up?

I wouldn't at all mind criticism from these editors if they actually led by example...but they really do not lead by example. They can't even provide one single example! I can show you plenty of my contributions so you know exactly what you'd be losing if you blocked me from editing economic articles. But what would be the loss if you blocked Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO? There would be no loss...and that's a problem. --Xerographica (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

wow, 168 violations in the hat. did anyone read each example, is there a highlight reel? since i havent clicked each, which was the worst? the few random examples i did follow seemed rather tame? whatever happens with this case, i suspect one of the parties is in error. either X has flown under the radar for quite some time, or R is looking too hard. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Clarification for Darkstar. The count is 116, as the diffs begin with #52. The first (#51) is the block log, provided as the starting point. Was I looking too hard? Well, there is the pre-block history, which is not included. And I might have given descriptions to the his comments, like "snide" or "cute". (I did so in response to him directly a few times.) But the point is, that Xerographica constantly throws out these comments. So, given the borderline nature of many of them, they are invidious. Alas, someone needed to do something; and, as there are other things I rather do, I did not enjoy this project much. – S. Rich (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I have had the same problems with Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO since I edited Freedom of Choice, but now things seem to be moving on. Anyway, as far as I know, I don't see any serious violation of WP's policies by Xerographica. I find it really hard to assume good faith with their disruptive edits and abuse of DRs, so I can understand Xerographica's frustrations. I share the same. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – In reply to Xerographica immediately above.

I'll refer you to Carl Eytel, which I started and which took one year and over 500 edits from myself and 14 other editors to achieve Good Article status.

Here are the diffs on Scroogenomics: [123] – 3 by you at the start in setting up the article and 22 subsequent edits by 5 other editors.

Hugo Spinelli did not suffer disruptive edits from me. I modified the talk page headings in accordance with WP:TPO to neutralfy them. I posted the rationale on the edit summary when I did so. And I have quoted the particular language of the TPO guidance on that talk page. And I apologized to Hugo when it appeared that he did not understand the rationale. (And I am sorry to see that Hugo finds it hard to AGF. This essay WP:AAGF, is one that he might find interesting.)

– S. Rich (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

if cute and snide are grounds for action, i fear the whole of wikipedia will need to block itself Mr Richiepoo. Have a dandy doodle day sweetheart. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The deingrating comment of "richiepoo" and "sweetheart" above and in the edit summary certainly is, however ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Please see my response to Darkstar on his talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support RFC/U Look, I don't know what the hell else to try in order to get Xerographica to fall in line with Project and Community Norms. Blocks don't phase him. Polite correction has xero effect. Attempts by some of the most patient and knowledeable editors are ignored. It's either indef-block and lose the potential for some good edits, start an RFC/U, or let this editor run roughshod over everyone. My choice is b. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i see what you did there Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am not an admin and I am unsure whether I should comment here. If not, I apologize and will remove this. I was mentioned in the 'extended history' above and have two thoughts. First, it is inappropriate to hide Easter Eggs in articles (humorous or otherwise) in order to make points about whether Wikipedia editors read or comprehend your additions. Second, the assertion that other editors are incapable of understanding or are insufficiently interested in and hence incapable of editing is appalling. This editor has passion and fire. It needs some tempering. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – To Bwilkins & Capitalismojo: please see my comment to (my buddy) Darkstar here: [124]. I really don't think there is a pony under all of that horse shit. To Capitalismojo: your comments are most welcome. We are not just "users" of WP, we are contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment While I have noticed problems with X (and they appear to continue to a lesser degree) I can understand his frustration with a cadre of editors following his every move. Not that him being followed is a bad thing for the pedia, but it is certainly making him uncomfortable.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• By OP – Various observations about Xerographica being uncomfortable, upset, frustrated, or whatever are missing the point. The fact that certain editors, or any editors at all, are monitoring his activity, and making repeated efforts (with both honey and vinegar) to get him to improve his attitude and editing, is missing the point. The fact that he might have something to contribute alongside his tirades, pleadings, unfounded admonitions, complaints, highhanded sounding superior comments (and attacks), is missing the point. Note, please, that his disruptive, truculent, and selfish pattern of editing and commenting has gone on for some 2,000 edits, 770 of which are on article pages and the remainder on article/user talk pages. (I cannot tell you how many comments have been made about or to him. I suspect the number would be a comparatively high one.) Pleading, discussion, warnings, blocks, etc. have not helped. Moreover, with the conclusion of each block, he continues with the same behavior. (Indeed, he has had blocks extended because of his comments made in appealing the blocks.) The point is that the community is being treated unfairly when his behavior continues as it has. The point is that actual contributors, not just those editors who are following him, are frustrated, upset, uncomfortable, and disrupted each time Xerographica issues another "you are not qualified to comment because you are biased, did not read, do not understand, do not see the wisdom that I seek to impart to the world, etc." Is it unfair to "hound" Xerographica? Only if the hounding lacked basis or was simply personal – but that is not the case. Is it unfair to the community to have him continue on? Yes. I am convinced that a RFC/U would have no positive results. The RFC/U could only repeat the admonitions about his DE, and ask him to stop what he has been doing for these 2,000 edits. Xerographica had had his chance to behave according to community standards when the last block ended, but his behavior picked up again immediately following the block. So I ask, who is being treated unfairly? In my opinion, the community is. And allowing Xerographica to snarl about, unleashed, uncaged, is a disservice to the community. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's a case of the snarling tiger versus the proverbial bull in the china shop. I'm only snarling at the bull because it's destroying the china. But maybe it's not destroying the china? Unfortunately, there just aren't enough editors to form a credible consensus with regards to economic topics. That means that any "snarling" on my part is far easier for outside editors to spot than the destruction of china is.

But I've honestly made an effort to tone down my "snarling". The thing is...I really don't think it's "snarling" to ask another editor whether they've done their homework. These three editors follow me around and undo my edits. Maybe they know something that I don't. So I ask them whether they've read the material. And then they accuse me of personally attacking them. If they asked me the same question I would simply answer "Yes, I have". If they produce a source that I haven't read (which has never happened), then why would I accuse them of personally attacking me if they ask whether I've read it? --Xerographica (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Observations:
  • We had much of the same in [125] the block of last December. Arguments were made in that appeal which simply repeated the behavior that lead to the block. With the December block in mind, I submit that the "They don't read" is nothing more than the other side of the the same "They don't add value" coin.
  • Last month's block [126] has the same thing that we see above. E.g., he said "I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable." (X's closing remark in appealing the block.)
  • Both before and after this last block I and others talked to him about what a worthless and disruptive question the inquiry is. E.g., I tried to tell him that he should not ask "have you read the sources I provided?". (And here he repeats it!) Why?
    • 1. AGF means you assume the other editor has read it. On the other hand, asking if "Did you see this part: 'The world is round' in Columbus' diary? I think it supports the idea of ...." That sort of question opens dialogue. That sort of question is focused. That sort of question can and does AGF. But no ....
    • 2. No what? No, X has figured out on his own that other editors have not read stuff, and he declares so directly in his comments.
    • 3. In any event, what are the two possible answers to X? They are: a. "No. I haven't." Which would only reinforce his smug, superior attitude and thereby engender another remark belittling the editor. Or, b. "Yes. I have." In one such case, X ended up saying [127] "read more and edit less" in his edit summary. (Albeit not directly to Rubin who had answered yes. The ES was, perhaps, more directed to me.)
    • 4. Regardless, Xerographica purports to know so much about this stuff that no editor could overcome his superior knowledge and analysis. But he misses the point, repeatedly made, that his OR and SYN is unacceptable.
  • Xerographica had repeatedly said "Where's one article that Rich, Rubin or SPECIFICO have actually built up?" Patting myself on the back, I hope Carl Eytel will shutoff that spurious comment.
  • His "they don't read" comments are only part of the problem. He has engaged in POINTy behavior and other disruptive conduct.
  • Here's a suggestion. What if this ANI was a RFC/U? (In a sense the last few months with Xerographica have been an ongoing RFC/U on his user talk pages.) Would we get a different result? No. I submit that his comments above are simply burying the pony even deeper in the pile.
  • Last point, consider if Xerographica had made the above remarks in a block appeal. Would they survive scrutiny? Has he made a WP:NICETRY? Does he consider and comply with WP:NOTTHEM? Has he actually agreed that huge portions of his behavior are unacceptable? The answer, pre-block appeal and now, is no.

– S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

if he promises to stop snarling altogether can we close this thread? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought he had already promised to stop snarling.... But, perhaps, we disagree as to who the the proverbial bull in the china shop is.

Many editors assert that Xerographica is the "bull", creating articles which are not encyclopedic, promote his POV (which I generally agree with, but, I recognize it is a POV), have excessive quotes and "see also" links, and do not have references (and probably other problems I don't recall at the moment.)

Xerographica asserts that many editors have not read (his provided) source materials; are removing relevant quotations, references, and Wikilinks; (and probably other offenses I don't recall.).

So, who is (creating the) bull?

As an aside, in most cases, I don't think X is violating WP:OR except as WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By OP – Suggested course of action:

1. While I am not familiar with the technical details, I recommend a one-month WP:TBAN on Xerographica from editing on any pages related to economics, libertarianism, capitalism, or politics. Article categories (by parent) would be the determinants.
2. Likewise, Xerographica be interaction banned from commenting on any talk pages, user or otherwise, for the duration of the ban. (His own talk page would be the exception.)
3. Xerographica undertake an WP:Editor review during his ban. If he completes it before the close of 30 days, he can appeal the ban and ask for an early termination. If he does not complete the review, he must go to the banning administrator/community and justify the delay.
4. As part of the ER process, he post the ER templates on his user/talk pages.
5. In return (and at the risk of making this nonsense look like a personal battle), I will WP:DGF and undertake two reviews of the backlogged Editor Reviews. One at the outset of the 30 days and one upon completion of Xerographica's review.
6. This ban may be imposed in one of two ways. If technically or administratively possible, as a WP:CBAN IAW WP:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban. If not by Banning policy, then voluntarily by Xeriographica.
7. In either case, the sanction gets logged.

That's it. I'm putting away my WP:BLUDGEON. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on commenting again in this thread, but I'd like to say that a ban from posting on any talk page is a terrible idea. If we're considering sanctions other than blocks, it should be because we're trying to guide him into being a more productive editor. An essential part of the editing process is discussion of differences on talk pages; taking away that option will only make things worse, not better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment For everybody's consideration, here's one of my most recent interactions with Rubin and SPECIFICO... Talk:Free_rider_problem#See_also_-_preference_revelation. Was there snarl on my part? Yes. Like I said, it's frustrating when the same three people follow you around and undo your edits. In the past I would have engaged in an edit war and would have been far more snarly. But now I simply post my disagreement on the talk page. In this instance I made a genuine effort to try and help Rubin, and then SPECIFICO, understand the connection and relationship between the two concepts. I could have been nicer, I could have been more patient and I certainly could have better explained the connection. But if it had been anybody else (other than Rich) I certainly would have been nicer and more patient.

From my perspective, just like I'm completely clueless about physics...these three editors are completely clueless about the free-rider problem and all of the other economic concepts that they edit. But now I'm posting my disagreements on the talk pages. It might take a month, or a year or 5 years...but hopefully eventually another editor will come along, read what I've posted on the talk pages and undo the damage caused by these editors. It's certainly not "natural" for me to standby and patiently and politely voice my disagreement with their edits. But I've got the standby part down. I no long undo their edits. Regarding patience...well...I did spend my time trying to help them understand the concept. That took a lot of patience on my part. Regarding politeness/civility...I no longer engage in what most would consider to be personal attacks. Can I eliminate the "snarl" though? Could you not be snarly to editors who are clearly and constantly harassing you?

How about this. If you guys actually enforce the policy against harassment...Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding...then I will really try to stop snarling at these three editors. If not, then all I can promise is that I won't engage in what most would perceive to be personal attacks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding:

"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

Whether or not you agree, I see related problems on multiple (economics) articles, and articles you perceive as economics articles, including {{quotefarm}}, providing "references" without indicating what text in the reference might be relevant to what text in the Wikipedia article, misreading sources (often, by adding your own knowledge of (a particular school of) economics to interpret the source), adding "See also" links which are only relevant through another article already Wikilinked, or are not relevant at all, interpreting common "folk" sayings as economic concepts, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

By OP – Any comments on my proposed course of action? Or does Xerographica get to decide what the community has to do? – S. Rich (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion, edit warring, uncivil and disruptive approach

A Colombian based IP, 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs) has been involved in a number of aggressive edits, edit warring with anyone who disagreed with him and with some rather uncivil summaries in his approach with others. He was blocked early today by Kuru for the fourth time. The IP has now hopped to another address—190.208.49.108 (talk · contribs)—and has continued to war, going past WP:3RR earlier and leaving yet another insulting message. It's becoming tedious to try and explain what the MOS is all about and to keep pointing out what WP:CIVIL is supposed to be about. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• He's not still edit warring over Cleo Rocos is he? Oh my word. Indef away. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Clear cut case - need an admin to block the sock and as Ritchie notes, indefs are called for now. Jusdafax 23:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• I blocked 190.208.49.108 for 72 hours, not much reason to go longer since IPs are disposable. I also semi-protected the page for a month via sockpuppeting (close enough). Left the talk page alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• While my "indef" comment was flippant (IPs rarely get indeffed), the length and determination of the edit warring makes me concerned we'll be back here next month after the protection expires talking about it all over again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Is it OK if I agree with the content of the IP's edit? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Same here; I don't really disagree with the content. Methodology is lacking. Kuru (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Certainly. They started off with an insult. But I have restored the edit and explained why on the talk page. One more thing. It takes two to tango, and it doesn't take much more to get an IP blocked by tag teaming and that's what happened here. I won't deny that the IP went about this the wrong way but can we please look at ourselves a bit here also: this was not seemly. Edits should be judged on content, and IPs shouldn't be reverted just because a. they don't have an account and b. they are rude. If we reverted every rude registered editor we'd all need mass rollback. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually the IP had edit warred and been uncivil to a whole host of editors—not so much a tango for two, but a mass dust-up of 9 or 10 outside the club afterwards! Drmies, next time—and with all due respect—come to a consensus with others before you revert, otherwise you are just joining in an edit war and liable to ruffle the feathers of others. - SchroCat (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I see your due respect, and raise you a nice and appropriate essay. What I see is a bunch of editors throwing acronyms of policies around, and one IP throwing around insults after becoming exasperated, no doubt. I don't see anything there that address English, the language. Getting consensus on that talk page probably means buying everyone a kitten. For the last time, "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" is not acceptable English, it is not mandated by the MOS, it is not POV. That's the consensus: common sensus. Now, you may go ahead and revert, and get a couple of others to revert as well. I won't be rude, I'll just throw up my hands and say...well, there won't be anything left to say. Or, it is reported in many sources, or at least some sources, a number of which were deemed to have been reliable, that a certain editor was reported to have said that there wasn't anything left to say. Drmies (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Drmies, I think you need to look into this a little more closely. This is an IP whose first port of call was uncivil language, regardless of whether the edit was right or not. Have a look again at the Irish Pound article: good edit, stupid summary. He's been like that since day 1: although most of his edits have been moving in the right direction, his summaries have not. His insults have not been through exasperation, they are his starting point. I also suggest you look into the hisory of the Rocos article a little more closely. The mention of the press was where it ended up after the previous, gramatically-correct and preferred version ("best known for starring alongside Kenny Everett") was warred over by the IP against the consensus of others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I can't speak for anyone else, but the two "reverts" I did in January were both adding sources and adding content supported by them, and neither was to the version that Drmies just reverted from. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Being an entirely involved editor - although having removed the pages in question from my watchlist, I was unaware that it was still ongoing - I can say that only one editor became exasperated, and that was me. The IP editor has not changed their editing style (with regard to summaries) since the word go. They claim to be an experienced editor, yet when challenged avoided or ignored the question, which is, I suppose their priviledge - but doesn't help their position. The question has really moved on from their contributions, and is instead concerned with their conduct - which is why it's ended up here at ANI. Is there any reason why 190.208.49.108 has not been blocked for block evasion? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis blocked that IP for 72 hours. See here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

72 hours does seem to make something of a mockery of the initial one month block tho. Not only will they be free to return in a few days (rather than the month their first account is blocked for) they have hardly been given a deterrent to returning to further their abusive and disruptive editing patterns. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts, but a more important consideration is proper language in an article. I only had a quick look, but the IP edit which replaced "described in the UK national press as being best known for starring" with "who starred" looked good to me because it fixed the inappropriate language in the article. Was the IP doing anything in other edits that were less constructive? They should have responded more calmly, but perfection is not a requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is talking about perfection? We're talking about an uncivil and disruptive edit warrior only getting a 72 hour block for block evasion on a one-month block leading to their fifth block. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the point that shouldn't get lost: I offered no opinion on the quality of their edits and blocked for their methods, block evasion. That it is the same person is pretty obvious. The talk page is not protected, and perhaps they can use it for a bit, hopefully after waiting at least the 72 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate that the addresses are "disposable" and the editor can hop to another if they wish to, but to have a one month block on one address (for the fourth block) and then only 72 hours on the one they are using to evade the block (the fifth block for an even worse offence than the others) seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely the length of time should at least equate to the others, on the grounds of consistency alone? (Actually there is an argument for a longer ban, as they have compounded their earlier offences by adding block evasion to their list of previous offences). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally only one or the other is done except in the case of block evasion/socking. Any admin is free to revert, modify or remove any action I've done with no hard feelings, they all know that as that is the first thing on my user page. The reason the IP block was so short was simply because it was useless to block for longer, knowing he will just cycle to another IP, and the idea is to not punish the next person who gets that IP and might want to edit. If you look carefully at the type of IP address that is, I probably should have made it even shorter. Keep in mind, my goal isn't justice, it is creating a solution, which I think this addresses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me User:SchroCat was looking for simple consistency. (He's not the one introducing concept of "justice" or "injustice" here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm on the IP's side, as far as the comment in question goes. It's my opinion that the formulation he was criticising was well deserving of criticism. I'd be exceedingly annoyed in his shoes. If this kind of thing is at the root of his testiness, I'd support an instant unblock, a shot of morphine and lots of hugs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was the reason the IP got blocked. How do you feel about this edit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there an analysis of the whole situation somewhere? The diff just given shows a very reasonable edit, with a bad word in the edit summary. However, the edit summary also clearly states that, in the opinion of the IP, "X is best known for appearing on Y show" should simply be "X appeared on Y show" due to NPOV. The IP's edit could be regarded as pedantic (like demanding a citation for "the sky is blue"), but speaking as someone with no knowledge of X or Y, the IP is extremely correct in their implication that "is best known for" needs a citation. If every edit the IP does is accompanied with profanity, then block away. However, if the profanity comes after mindless reversions of the IP's good edits, a certain amount of latitude should be granted by experienced editors—we are here for the encyclopedia, not a warm glow. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A perusal of the history of Cleo Rocos will be necessary to get the full picture, but as you state, the IP was on point for saying "best known" required a source, to which I added one here. That got reverted, so I added two sources here. That got reverted, at which point I concluded I was starting to edit war, and dropped out. You'll have to ask everyone else what happened next. But like Dennis said, you don't get let off 3RR for being right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that "best known for" required a source. I said it was clear POV which had to be removed. It's an unverifiable and biased statement, no matter how many sources you find that might contain it. It adds no information. It's like saying "Slaughterhouse Five is Vonnegut's best book". You'll find plenty of sources saying so but I sincerely hope you can see that trying to force such a viewpoint into an article would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.110.207 (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at his summaries via his edit history, which will show you the levels of his "tastiness". His first summary (on this IP anyway) reads: "02:59, 2 December 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . .Ronnie Biggs ‎ (NPOV. It's a core fucking policy. Learn what the fuck it means. It means stating the facts, not imposing your judgement on them.)" I can't see any interaction on the page previously which would have led to him being so aggressive. Many of the remainder of his summaries on pages he's edited for the first time read the same way. Shot of morphine? That's two words too many, but you go ahead and hug away if you want to if you think his approach somehow shows he's interacting in a respectful and civil manner. I'll remind you again, not only has he edit warred past 3RR (something that was never specifically brought to his attention), but refused to discuss anything to the point of agreement on talk pages, he has been hugely aggressive and disruptive on a number of pages and is massively guilty of block evasion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All the same, your reverts to Cleo Rocos here, here, here, here, here and here are entirely counterproductive, as you've gone right up to the limit of WP:3RR yourself - twice! You should be counting yourself lucky you didn't get a block as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never said I haven't reverted him (and you also did, as did a number of other editors), but on each ocassion I've asked him to go to the talk page to discuss: something he failed to do in a constructive manner. Instead he reverted everyone. I'll remind you of his first edit on the page—before he is supposed to have moved into "testiness": "and who the fuck took it upon themselves to decide what she is best known for? NPOV people - read it, learn it". A great number of people have tried to reason with him on this page—utterly unsuccessfully. Never mind, he only has a 72 hour block to wait through before he comes back to his charming summaries to cheers us all up with their warmth, humour and goodwill. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are other avenues available to deal with this. You can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard or get the page semi protected, and if that doesn't work, come here. What you shouldn't do is carry on reverting yourself, propagating the edit war. On two separate occasions, you were one revert away from potentially getting blocked via WP:3RR, and had that happened, I think you'd struggle to use "But he started it!" as a defence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As I am well-enough aware of WP:3RR and, as always, I stopped short of stepping over that line. (Actually, as you should know, as edit warring can be undertaken with just one revert, you are as guilty of this in view of the wider picture here). Regardless of that, I have not edit-warred against a host of other editors (and neither did you), but the IP has done. I have not started editing on any page with an edit summary of "pointlessly interrupting a sentence not once, not twice, but three fucking times is incredibly stupid" and I have not tried to avoid a justified block by IP hopping and now find myself sitting on my fifth block. He's damned lucky to only have 72 hours to be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to duck out of this conversation now, but I find "as always, I stopped short of stepping over that line" to be worrying. 3RR does not give you a Get Out of Jail Free card to do up to three reverts a day. That you seem to be unwilling to recognise or accept this gives me concern you'll do it again. I personally restrict myself to one revert, and the two here is a serious lapse of judgement on my part. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your parthian shot doesn't really look like that much of a truce, and neither does your ducking the point that just one edit can be edit warring in the the right circumstances. I've not said that I need or want a get out of gaol card, and I'm not overly happy about your previous implication that I would have wanted, needed or pleaded any form of defence for my actions. I'm also ducking out of this: it's gone way past anything useful and good luck dealing with this IP when he transgresses again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I was involved in this, but wasn't aware until now that this discussion was taking place here. The problem all along was not so much the content of the IP's edits, but their behaviour - the edit warring and generally confrontational attitude (which continues on their latest talk page post here). Everyone needs to bear in mind that, while blocked, they changed their mind as to the specific wording they considered acceptable. Their initial proposal was against talk page consensus; their final version was, if it had been considered rationally on the talk page, probably have been acceptable to most editors. If an IP (or anyone) is that uncivil and that bent on edit warring, it was quite right to have blocked them regardless of the merits of the wording they were proposing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• "poisonous clueless cunts"? Nice - and it fits so well within the civil approach to editing! - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• And is that a new block evasion too? He appears to have hopped over to 190.21.165.248 (talk · contribs)

• Block evasion should not be tolerated. However, short of a range block, there's no way to prevent IP-hopping block evaasion. If the evasion is restricted to certain articles, we can semi-protect the page. (BTW, the IP appears to be based in Santiago, Chile - where does Colombia come from?). Uncivil editing is condoned all the time at Wikipedia. I don't see why IPs should be held to a higher standard than editors with accounts. SchroCat should be careful about edit-warring. Their disclaimers that they are not doing so are hollow. Also, at least in this topic they are as aggressive as they claim the IP to be outside of ANI, which undermines their credibility. Dennis's block was fine, but it's not going to help much (as I stated earlier). Drmies's focus on content shouldn't get lost in the procedural dance. Unless someone has a suggestion as to what to do next administratively - and skip the back-and-forth bickering as it's not constructive - that is warranted by the history, this topic is going to get closed. The article itself hasn't been disrupted in about 24 hours and the penultimate editor 24 hours before that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we condone incivility - we might tolerate it in context where patience has been sorely tested, but I don't think we should encourage it as good practice. Similarly, being able to circumvent blocks by IP hopping is a real problem, and one I have no simple answer for other than aggressive adherence to RBI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Condone" may not be the best word, but we don't tolerate it just when it is provoked. From a sanctions perspective, we respond inconsistently (I might say all over the place). Although we don't - and shouldn't - "encourage" it, editors' views as to what constitutes incivility are hardly homogeneous.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban on user SuzanneOlsson

SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for disruptive editing by admin KillerChihuahua. Since the ban has expired she has returned and continues to push her fringe theories and make personal attacks on other editors. See User_talk:KillerChihuahua#SuzanneOlsson for the blocking admin's opinions supporting a topic ban. I would therefore like to propose a topic ban for this editor on the article Roza Bal, and any directly related articles. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you give more information like clarify the topic, what the mainstream views are, and what the fringe views are? What's the backstory here?--v/r - TP 04:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The back story is that SuzanneOlsson has incessantly pushed her own theories and website about this topic. Anyone who disagrees with her point of view, or dares to remove the link to her website is subject to a torrent of abuse. This can be seen at Talk:Roza Bal and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#www.rozabal.com --Biker Biker (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I read the talk page. I don't understand it because I know nothing about the topic. Please educate me. What exactly is the problem, with diffs? It's your job to make your case and you've not made it. You're only alluding to the matter that a case exists and we have to find it. Not trying to be a dick, but we need you to be more clear here on this board instead of pointing us elsewhere and expecting us to gather what you're getting at.--v/r - TP 04:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Short version: Jesus didn't die on the cross, his brother did and then Jesus left Palestine and died decades later as a very old man and was buried at Roza Bal - he is supposedly one of the two graves - and that should be in the Roza Bal article and a couple of Jesus articles. Which is a problem, because there are zero serious historians and/or archeologists who think there is anything to it. A cross or rosary found there is cited as evidence. Now, no one cares what Olsson believes, that's her business. But she can't put it in our articles until someone serious, someone major, someone, IOW, who meets RS, has written about it. She's an SPA with The Truth(tm) and we've all had experiences with such before. This is why she's here, I'm afraid. To "set the record straight" (from what the regular historians and anthropologists and theologists say) to "let your readers know". I wish her well in her endeavors, but I wish her to stop trying to popularize them using Wikipedia to do so. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you have been left with such a bad impression of me. I have not been here to 'push my views' or my website. My website has been at Wikipedia for years associated with various topics. Recently I acquired the domain name Roza Bal and have moved my entire website to point to that domain instead of the old one. There is nothing sinister happening. I have however been shouting loud and clear that some editors have pushed their own agendas when editing the Roza Bal page. Scholars are shot down as 'crackpots' and valid sources and links removed so the entire theory looks like fringe crackpots- thus offending millions of Ahmaddi Muslims worldwide. Religious scholars like James Tabor, Elaine Pagels, and Fida Hassnain are not referenced, or are only referenced with a note that this is all fringe crackpot theories invented by local shop keepers and manufacturers of fake relics. It is all too shocking to see this deliberate, religiously biased misinformation at Wikipedia. This conflict with Wiki editors goes back several years and is always centered around one or two particular editors...I am not raising a ruckus to hurt myself so badly here- but to correct the terrible inaccuracies and biases at the Roza Bal Wiki page. I have been taking a terrible beating over this. It would be much easier to just walk away. But the editing has not been honest, fair, scholarly, or accurate. That's the problem. It's never been about me or my website or my personal "crackpot" views. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels is a well-respected intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have been monitoring this dispute from the outside and I notice that SuzanneOlsson has accused those who want to keep her from editing this article of calling her a "crackpot" (in quotes) multiple times; however, Ctrl+F on Talk:Roza Bal indicates that she is the only one who has used this word. There seems to be some serious assumption of bad faith, and not on the parts of those who are arguing against her. I would be willing to guess that some real-world experts on the subject have called her this in the past, and she is now projecting her feelings toward those people onto other Wikipedians. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why SuzanneOlsson throws around names like Elaine Pagels. Anyone who has a look at the website will realize that this is not an academic publication, and linking to the site is basically spamming since the most informative thing on it is a link to Amazon.com. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing that out.The link led to my website- which never mentions Elaine Pagels there. The books are there as 'fillers' while the entire website has to be moved to a new server and created completely from scratch in a new program/format. It isn't intended to be 'scholarly' but to point everyone to additional resources. That's all I can manage for now. The site is under construction for the next few weeks. I did not perceive this as a "sales pitch" for amazon, nor spamming. I am sorry that you expressed that impression. Further, as websites go, it contains the least amount of information about me! So much for self- aggrandizement and self-promotion. I have promoted every other author more than myself! By the way, please note that I have done no editing, inserted no links to my website nor anyone else's. I have answered editors who attacked me and wrote misleading untruths. I regard that as necessary so the inaccurate info does not remain as the 'last word'...if anyone knows a better way, please explain it to me. I resent being called names and having innuendos about me posted by Wiki editors. Wouldn't that bother you too? Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne Olsson~~.

Elaine Pagels is a very reputable scholar. Minorview (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support formalisation of voluntary withdrawal from topic Article edits, but allow Talk edits - this is giant fringe, and has been massively disruptive creating/deforming Roza Bal, Unknown years of Jesus possibly some other articles, but as it stands Suzanne hasn't re added these self-published sources or websites to the articles. Suzanne has undertaken on Talk:Roza Bal to go away and try and get some basic refs with page numbers and ISBNs and come back. There are a couple of tangible page refs which only exist in Urdu translations and I suspect Suzanne is probably the only one who can get them. In the meantime, like it or not, Ahmadiyya claims and use of Sanskrit/Persian texts, however ludicrous to mainstream scholars are still notable, so they need WP:IRS sourcing. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If the problem is Ms Olsson's website, wouldn't it be a simple matter to just remove the link to the website until such time as the site has completed migration at which point its suitability as a source can be reassessed? Blackmane (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I think T Paris' request for clarification with diffs is reasonable, given the length of talk page discussions and I will try to provide a brief response. I became aware of Ms Olsson's edits a few weeks ago, but my understanding is that the situation goes back to 2008 and may be characcterized as follows:

2008 issues

• Ms Olsen wrote and self-published a book that refers to a building known as Roza Bal and her book proposes that Jesus of Nazareth died in Kashmir at age 130 and is buried in that building.
• In 2008 debate started about possible WP:COI, her use of Self-published sources, including her own book, and the issue of non-WP:RS items
• User comments from then are on her talk page and I will just reproduce some here:

• In May 2008 she was told about reliable sourcing by user:PaulB
• She was told in May 2008 not to add self-published items to Wikipedia by user:Dougweller.
• And user:itsmejudith told her in clear terms that the Olsson book is not reliable and should not be used
• There were also basic policy issues in 2008 and there is a statement by user:Fullstop that: "Not only is SuzanneOlson not following what she's quoting, she has a general lack of understanding of how WP works.

2013 issues

• Recently Ms Olson obtained the website Rozabal.com and restared adding article links about her website, along with references to her own book and some people she knows in Kashmir.
• There were often less than properly sourced items that other editors objected to and removed. As far as I can tell I did not actually remove any of her article text myself.
• She was blocked for a week by user:KillerChihuahua. User:JamesBWatson, the admin who declined to unblock, echoed the same sentiment as user:Fullstop had expressed in 2008, and said: "you think everyone else is wrong, that you are the victim of a conspiracy, that anyone who disagrees with you is biased and prejudiced, etc." and added that the problem has been "your single-minded concern with the notion that you are RIGHT and anyone who expresses an opposing view is WRONG"
• The user has also made somewhat strange statements, e.g. that Doug Weller reverted her because he has a secret crush on her, etc. At one point she apologizes about saying things, but later says similar things. Very unusual.
• She decided to stop two weeks, but has since returned and made statements regarding sources by Elaine Pagels supporting her views. I think Pagels would be surprised to hear that.
• User:Biker Biker who was not involved in the previous discussions started this thread.

In January 2013 I predicted that this user would be banned sooner or later, partly because she said somewhere that she will defend the Roza Bal hypothesis until the day she dies, and that type of determination often results a topic ban; also because in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and still does not source properly. I saw no way out then, and see none now. I think a topic ban happens either now or later. May as well be now before more user time is taken up. I have really had enough of this. As I said on her talk page, I stopped editing the Roza Bal page 2 weeks ago and will not be editing that article or commenting on it ever again. This has been just enough. Wikipedia can be a very strange place. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on Roza Bal related article edits, broadly construed, as suggested by user:EdJohnston on Feb 1 2013, prior to this thread. I have spent too much time on this, and this will be my last comment on the issue, and I will not be responding here further. Will just look back later to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic and spam ban per "the puppy" (KC) and WP:SPA. If the site becomes a "WP:RS" in the future, then information and links can be added at that time. — Ched :  ?  14:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KillerChihuahua and History2007's useful information and diffs. That must have taken some time to collect and lay out, History; I don't blame you for sounding tired. But as regards a "spam ban", per Ched — well, I don't mean to go all lawyerly — of course I'm for that if there's some practical point to it — but surely Wikipedia has a generalised spam ban? Nobody gets to spam us. Most especially not with links to websites they have an interest in driving traffic to. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC).
• Support per KC and History2007.--v/r - TP 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per KC and History2007. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. If we don't do it now we'll just go through all of this again at a later time. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Dougweller. Five years seems enough.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Just a quick look at Talk:Roza Bal shows that something indefinite is required to stop the waste of time regarding the peddling of unsupportable fringe views. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - though I'd have more faith if the editor in question came to understand the premise of WP:OR and volunteered not to make Roza Bal related edits on that basis. But failing that, community-enforced action is clearly necessary. Stalwart111 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You still have faith that might happen, Stalwart? People have been explaining WP:OR to her for at least five years. Here's a link from 2008, and here's one from 2013. Surely it's time we concluded she doesn't want to know. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

• Possibly not, and let me be clear - I support a topic ban entirely. I just tend to think there is a better chance of long-term "rehabilitation" of TB'd editors if there is some element of volunteerism in their instigation. But that's obviously not always possible and 5 years of WP:IDHT is justification enough for an enforced topic ban, absolutely. Stalwart111 12:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Recent comments like this suggest she doesn't still understand the issue here after five years.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Jesus of Nazareth, broadly construed, including the life of Jesus, the lost years of Jesus, the historicity of Jesus, and articles about people who study the topic, and literature about the topic. Note that such a topic ban would effectively ban the editor from Wikipedia, as this topic is her only interest. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I made errors when I first came here in 2005.Even naively allowing others (children and grandchildren) use my computer and log on to Wiki was a mistake. They became 'sock puppets'.. something I never even knew existed (my mind didn't work that way- nothing devious or fraudulent was ever intended) and it stopped immediately once I was made aware the problem. Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not. I have been reminded of this by several editors, but I have not done this! They were reminders,. Nothing more. I also objected to discrimination at Wiki, such as attacking my 'self-published' book while allowing others to remain because they were 'more notable' according to certain Wiki editors. In one incident, the self-published author of fiction even acknowledged me as his source and inspiration. He remains at Wiki to this day. I dont come to Wiki more than once every 2-3 years, and then only to update a broken link on one or two pages, links that have been here for years. I have not gone around Wiki inserting links to my web pages or books, and what is here had been here since years ago.Why is it now suddenly criminal and sinister? Inaccurate, misleading,prejudicial information however, is inserted, the Roza Bal page being an example. I asked permission to make contributions to help the page, new sources, documentaries, et cetera. We all acknowledged COI and were mindful of it. My son suddenly died and I had to deal with that and the funeral right in the middle of this. Before I had a chance to search out the references as I promised I would, everything was deleted, I was under attack, and things from 5 years ago brought up as though this was ongoing and regular. It isn't. I acknowledged that since getting the domain 'rozabal' I would have to be more careful. But to accuse me falsely of going around Wiki inserting links to my book and website "everywhere" this is simply not true. I do not think that Doug Weller is a good editor for the Roza Bal page. I have always said that. I do not think that History2007 knows that much about history and should not be making contributions to the Roza Bal page. He knows as little about the facts of Roza Bal as does Doug Weller. I may not be swift at understanding all Wiki policies- simply because I'm not here often enough. I am not familiar with what keys to strike to create indentations or topic headings here.I dont edit much here, less than once every year or two. I don't pretend to know everything about Roza Bal, or about Wiki, but I do know when false or misleading information is promoted. That's the real issue, the real problem. I noticed that some new fresh eyes (editors) have come to the Roza Bal page. They too noticed problems and recommended changes. I am most grateful for that. Thank You,and whatever the outcome for me here, I hope the page will continue to be improved by others. That's all I've ever asked for here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Please show me one incident- JUST ONE- where I inserted my book since once in 2008- 5 years ago. I have not." --->11:21, 29 January 2009 — raekyt 05:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another? 07:41, 14 February 2009 you as an IP? because minutes later you do that edit]. And this. Inserting a link to your webpage. adding your book as a cite. Adding your website as an EL... — raekyt 05:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for those links to edits. You showed where my book links have been there for years. You started with a link that was there since 2009. Virtually nothing changed except minor. Further, if the link pointed to an old website, and now to a new website,that isn't the same as the implication you are suggesting. The only point is they were already there for years. Thank You for taking the time though. I appreciate your efforts. I think it just goes to prove what I have been saying is true. If I were at Wiki inserting links on numerous topics for years and years, that's entirely different. I would not like anyone to be left with that erroneous impression. I think you just helped clarify this. The links were already there. Thank you for your efforts. I believe they really will be helpful.Peace. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It shows a long-term pattern of WP:PROMOTION. — raekyt 16:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on anything related to Jesus. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

English Patriot Man states that he is a banned editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

English Patriot Man (talk · contribs) has said (at Talk:Adolf Hitler "I was banned before for editing stuff many don't like and labeled "anti-Semitic" for example saying Karl Marx was a Jew not an ethnic German, which is nothing but the truth" - another editor believes that he is a sock and linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeordieWikiEditor/Archive. Anyone familiar with this? If someone states they are a banned editor I'd say that's reason enough to block. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Could be referring to User:WitsBlomstein (sock User:Nikasheoo made this edit). --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A conviction should not rely on a confession alone, of course Basket _Feudalist 16:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia ain't a justice system, so...(kinda academic, though, i think there's enough behavioral evidence anyway. We'll see what happens at the SPI.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nirajdoshi is very likely another sock of the same user. None of them seems to be banned though, just indeffed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I could see English Patriot Man being a GeordieWikiEditor sock. Can't see any plausible connection between English Patriot Man and Nirajdoshi, though. also, isn't SPI that way? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, also: indefblocked because duh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We're a happy family.

Well spoken. All block reasons should be so concise. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

This was my most-favorite-ever couldn't-be-more-concise-or-any-more-accurate unblock request response, hands down. Zad68 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fucking weirdest thing. I was just checking the history of the homophobia article on a completely unrelated matter, and I saw that name in the history with the strikethrough showing it's blocked (thanked to whatever script), and checked out the talk page to see what had happened... it's like when you hear a word for the first time, and then hear it everywhere you go. Sorry to go so wildly off-topic. Just had to say that. :P — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well confusing blocks and bans is a fairly common mistake. Also, I seem to recall one sockmaster who constantly pushes the POV that being Jewish is mutually exclusive with holding any other ethnicity, but I can't remember a name. Anyone know who I'm talking about? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do! But, unfortunately, I can't remember the name either. I'm not sure why I replied, really. – Richard BB 16:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Y'all are probably thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#Talk:Germans and User:Guitar hero on the roof/User:Danton's Jacobin. I thought that too, at first, but looking at the contribs, GWE seems likely. I've started an SPI, so we'll see what happens. maybe I'm just slow today, but I can't tell whether Bish is being facetious... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You may think of Bishzilla as facetious, if you like. You'd do so at your own risk, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Rumour has it that the real reason that Finnish children's Heavy Metal band Hevisaurus split up was not a contract dispute with their record label, but that they were all seeking to win the affections of Teh Bishzilla and argued over who was going to send the biggest bunch of Valentine's Day roses.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more old school: [128]/[129].Volunteer Marek 00:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, GuitarHeroOnTheRoof, whose name has been clumsily dropped in this thread, with whom I have corresponded off-wiki, is Israeli. I really doubt that he's gonna pull the name "English Patriot Man" from the sky. There is a simplistic Kumbaya group of editors provoking needless conflict by insisting upon a single article on the members of the German nation-state and the members of the German ethnic-group and then putting Karl Marx's portrait right in the middle of the montage. Power wiki politics in the content department... But, hey, that's an editing conflict at root, not a matter for AN/i (though eventually a matter for ArbCom). Still, the stupid aspersions about the opinions of this or that editor about the relationship between ethnic Jews and ethnic Germans needs to cease. If you've got sock puppet cases to be made, this isn't the place. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anon 64.183.48.206's refusal to discuss adding excess to film plot summary

For several days, anon 64.183.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added superfluous details to the plot summary of Lolita (1962 film), which already has more than 850 words (and that's after I trimmed it). WP:FILMPLOT clearly states "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." I have tried discussing with this anon on his talk page, but he refuses to respond. I tried to compromise with the anon by leaving part of his edit and trimming other parts of the plot summary; his only response was to restore his edits in their entirety. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining the information at WP:FILMPLOT. I asked the anon to discuss on the talk page and stop edit warring. His only response was to restore all of his edits. I have given him warnings about edit warring. During all of this, the anon has never made one comment in an edit summary, on the article's talk page, or on his talk page. In addition to my reverts, another editor also has reverted his edits. I am not asking for sanctions necessarily, but I hope an admin or someone can convince this anon to please discuss, wait for other opinions, and follow the usual procedures of WP:BRD. I have notified him about this discussion. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like they've probably violated WP:3RR. Might be best to take it to the appropriate noticeboard after giving them the standard warning. Doniago (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, no technical 3RR violation, and my experience generally is that slow-motion edit warring by an anon does not result in action at the 3RR notice board. I'm more concerned with his unwillingness to discuss. Cresix (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This anon appears to be the same editor as 69.231.39.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both have made similar disruptive edits. 64.183.48.206 recently came off a one week block for IP hopping to make disruptive edits. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is still edit warring even though they didn't violate the 3RR, which is blockable. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, for future reference you might want to take things like this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some films where the plot is complex enough that a little excess verbiage is required to give a good accounting of it, but Lolita is not one of the them, the story is fairly straight-forward. IP should be blocked for edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a pretty clear waring on the users talk page. If there is anymore edit warring the user should be blocked immediately. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even I've reverted a no. of edits by this IP. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

The IP did respond at its talk page, at 00:53, 15 February 2013: "It's very important that the Ping Pong game that is played in the film, be mentioned before the piano playing. Also the word "Let" really should be the word "Rent" TO "Let" is the wrong form of word that is used." 69.95.203.11 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Both IPs look like potential Bambifan socks to me. There are a couple common targets that pop up in both of their contribs (not naming them here) that are tells. Are there any admins/editors who have more experience with Bambifan who could take a look? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted 69.231.45.122 and blocked 64.183.48.206. I don't want to assume just yet that those are the same though I suppose there is no basis for my assumption besides ridiculous good faith and the clock, which tells me I need to be doing other things. I encourage further digging. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

IP has now hopped to 69.231.45.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cresix (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies blocked the 69...122 IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Censorship by archiving

The discussion at Talk:Jesus has been archived twice while ongoing. In both cases, the pattern has been that those doing the archiving insist that others are disruptive merely for expressing their views. In neither case was the thread started by those accused of "disruption." Rather, we gave our opinion. Then we were accused of disrupting, for responding to what others had said. Then the discussion was archived, always less than 24 hours after the last comment, and always with the archivers giving themselves the last word. It is outright censorship.

In the most recent case, I was in the middle of typing a response to comments directed at me, when the entire thread was archived. I consider it censorship, because what is considered disruptive is the mere expression of certain opinions, such as that there is a problem with the sourcing and claims made for historical existence of Jesus.

Current dispute: Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, History2007. The former accused me of vandalism on my Talk page--for what? Humanpublic (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous time this happened, I was warned for 3RR. I read the guidelines, which define 3RR as involving edits that undo someone's else's work. Exactly how is it somebody's "work" to archive a thread (that is active)? It seems to me that archiving an active discussion is actually an undoing of the conversants' work. Humanpublic (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment User Humanpublic is a highly disruptive user who has been actively disrupting the talk page of Jesus for months. Almost all of his comments violate WP:NOTAFORUM as he challenges the facts in the article, supported by several academic sources, and all he has to show is his own personal opinion. He has been told time and time again to present his own sources, yet never cared to do so. He has also continued to ignore all comments about the talk page not being a forum. His accusation that he was censored is ridiculous, as he has been given tons of occasions and time to present his arguments using sources. He has never taken that opportunity, and there was no indication whatsoever that he was about to do so.Jeppiz (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic is a thinking editor who challenges the conservative status quo. Jeppiz is a highly disruptive user who takes completely innocent editors who also happen to disagree with him to ANI, wasting everyone else's time in the process, and suffering no consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec x3) see multiple warnings by various users on OP's talkpage, dating back to December last year; beating this horse almost SPA-like since September, and rationale for closing the section in question (permalink). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

He also deleted my comment: [[130]] and then accused me of vandalism. Yes, those who disagree with me, give a lot of "warnings." Warnings for responding to what they say to me. Humanpublic (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your responses are good material for a blog or op-ed pieces; feel free to write those. It's not what wikipedia is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My response was a direct answer to the question posed to me by History2007. He asked for a source about a claim I made, and I gave him the source and the quote. As for "disrupting for months", not counting the Talk page comment you deleted, I've made 3 comments on the Talk page in the last month. Humanpublic (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts or if you really this that that is what happened. The facts of the matter is that after you returning for the umpteenth time repeating your own personal opinions, you were reminded about WP:NOTAFORUM and urged to present sources. You decided to ignore all that, and just went on and on about your what you believe, as you've done so often before. Seb_az86556, who had not been involved in the discussion, then stepped in an archived the most irrelevant parts that clearly violated WP:NOTAFORUM, clearly stating that further violations would be treated as vandalism. You ignored that, you deleted his archiving - and you went to posting your own personal opinion over and over again.Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NOTAFORUM are NOT vandalism in the wikipedia sense. They may be disruptive, (and in this case they certainly are,) but they can not be treated as vandalism. Sperril (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec x lots) Okay, I get it - everyone's pissed. Jesus is one of those articles that will bring out incredible POVs all round, and anyone editing it needs to have a very thick skin to survive. That's just the way it is. Is anyone reverting anyone's edits or deleting stuff in the article? If yes, there are available channels such as WP:3RR. If no, simple thing would be to ignore until sources turn up. I can't hand on heart see any vandalism here - bring us some diffs of talk comments being changed, refactored or blanked, then we might have something to go on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave it to you. My comment was deleted : [131]. My comment gave a source. Then he attacked me for a lack of sources and told me to go write a blog. He archived an active discussion. Humanpublic (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Seb_az86556 is an admin. Maybe I should quit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Learn to read. I'm not. And why would that matter, anyways? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Have any of you tried going to dispute resolution on this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a content-dispute. It's a behavior issue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. To the best of my knowledge, WP:DRN is for content disputes. If Humanpublic had presented sources when first encouraged to so (or the second, third or perhaps twentyfifth time), there might have been something to discuss at DRN. When a user spends month after month just repeating his personal opinion, which is at odds with what every academic in the field says, I don't see a content dispute. There are several content disputes at Jesus, but this isn't one of them.Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing at odds with what "every academic in the field" says (what field is that, anyway? history? hardly any of the sources are classical historians. they are theologists). I said most of the sources are Christian, which is a fact. I said the lack of secular historian sources matters--my editorial opinion about sourcing, not about the subject itself. I said there is no contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Jesus, which is sourced to the sources already in the article. Then I gave the actual source and link, and it was deleted.

I'm going to restore my deleted comment from Talk. I'd like the deleter warned for vandalism. Humanpublic (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has butted heads with Seb in the past, let me make it explicitly clear that this is not 'vandalism' in the Wikipedia sense. It may be many other things, but vandalism is intentional defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Despite that it seems like a dick move to you, you cannot demonstrate that Seb did it to harm the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you supply us with diffs of where you've discussed this before? Sorry, but I think everyone here has got carried away, shot their mouths off, and just needs to just calm down and take a deep breath. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is getting carried away except for the OP. OP must launch a diligent search for sources that are relevant, then come back and make his case. That's how it works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are also getting carried away. Do not delete edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. Vandalism has a very specific definition on wikipedia. This isn't it. That being said, Humanpublic is simply not getting it. This has been going on for far too long. Admin action needs to be taken. Sperril (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Herein ANI commenters go off the ANI track and get into content discussion better held at Talk:Jesus NE Ent 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's hard for me to want to sanction Humanpublic, because he's fundamentally right. The article should be treating Christian and Islamic sources as biased: it would be extremely remarkable for a Christian or Islamic historian to objectively examine the facts and come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is a fictional character, as he is a central figure in both religions. It would be far more enlightening to find out what atheists, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have to say on the topic, because they don't possess an inherent desire to affirm his existence. Instead, the editors of the article refuse to examine the sources for bias and take into account the simple fact that most people that publish papers on the existence of Jesus are people that undertook the question with the forgone conclusion that not only did he exist, but he is either the son of or a prophet of an all-powerful being that created the universe. Only in religious articles do we tolerate this kind of bias. I don't know how to fix it, but it would be better to figure out how to fix the article than to figure out how to shut down Humanpublic.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) While I am sensitive to your concerns, we have an entire article on the subject already. The talk page of that article would be a great place to have the discussions that Humanpublic wants to have. I can't think of a single good reason that this needs to be discussed on the main Jesus page except that Humanpublic knows it will cause the absolute maximum disruption there. (Is Humanpublic even aware of the existence of that page?) Sperril (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Because the lead of the article contains the problematic statement that the majority of historians believe the evidence supports his existence, perhaps? That would seem like a reasonable motivation.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I think this is diverging into a content discussion now. I will not try to prolong it, but given that Kww's main tenet is the exclusion of scholars based on their religious beliefs, I would just point out in passing that based on his reasoning, Jewish scholars would also need to be mostly excluded given that a number of references in Talmudic sources are interpreted as having references to Jesus and rejecting him as divine. So that reasoning would exclude Christian and Jewish scholars. And of course Buddhist scholars hardly write on the topic (given the need to be able to read sources in Koine Greek) so the only permitted scholars would have been agnostics and atheists. And as it happens Ehrman (the first source used) is an agnostic, and Price (the 2nd source used) is an atheist. But again, this is a divergent issue here, the sources were discussed on RSN and the recommendation there was that they are WP:RS, and that is the general scholarly consensus. RSN was the natural venue for that discussion rather than ANI and the issue has been discussed there several times, with the same conclusion, as user:DGG mentioned there.History2007 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Jews are less biased than Christians on the existence of Christ. Saying Rabbis are reliable sources for the existence of Moses would pose analagous problems. Is there a policy on archiving? I don't see anything disruptive in the discussion, and have seen no credible explanation of why an ongoing discussion should be archived against someone's will. Isn't the official way to get a disruptive editor dealt with to bring it here, rather than trying to cram an archiving down his/her throat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC) May be so, and Jewish scholars are in fact highly respected in the field. Yet not a single Jewish scholar who denies existence has been presented. Yesterday, I specifically asked for a single historian from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem be named as an opposing source and none was offered. But again, this is a content discussion now. History2007 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, Christians are even more biased, since Jews don't conser Moses the son of a god and current salvation. Minorview (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree with History2007 above. Humanpublic had repeated the lie that Jesus's existence only comes from Christian sources for months, and Kww (probably in good faith) repeats the same lie above. It's quite simply not correct, there are several non-Christian scholars who argue exactly the same thing. Even if we took out every Christian scholar, the topic at hand (did Jesus exist) would not change. So not only are the posts above about Christians being biased utterly irrelevant to ANI, they are also irrelevant to the discussion about Jesus's existence. However, that is a content discussion. What matters is that since September 2012, Humanpublic has been repeating the same argument over and over again, never with any source. It's that's not disruptive, I don't know what is.Jeppiz (talk) Oh, grow up and try to understand what others are saying. Even if not practising Christians, the scholars being used as sources are (almost?) entirely from Christian cultures. It's a systemically biased sample. Wikipedia has to take a global view, avoiding a cultural bias. It's not a lie to argue that. Allegations of lying are personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) That's a significant charge against a whole field. Is this your opinion or do you have a source, written by a historian immersed in the relevant primary sources, to support this contention? Frankly, even if the field is biased and no authoritative sources address this there's nothing to be done as there's no solution that we can offer. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The Jews are biased-vs-Christians are biased line of discussion needs to stop. Like right now. Discuss the sources all you want, but if the accusations of bias against entire faiths continues there will be blocks issued. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. This is a content discussion that should be on an article talk page. I do not think the situation warrants a ban or block on Humanpublic as of now. But the point is that the discussion really belongs on the Christ myth theory page, given that he is repeating John Remsburg's arguments, which are discussed on that page. I suggest we stop this content discussion and just continue spending this lovely time on the myth theory talk page, not here. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The contention is more like "no one can be considered an objective source about tenets of his own religion", Beeblebrox. Certainly not a statement that should lead to threats of blocking.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Could you clarify that wording please Kww? Do you mean to say "no one can be considered an objective source about tenets of his own beliefs" or just religion? History2007 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) We don't accept the ancient "sacred" texts as reliable sources. We cannot automatically accept the views of adherents as objective. So, rather than trying to silence Humanpublic, how about showing some interest in his concern about the archiving of active discussions? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Of course WP:Primary supports your statement. However, Kww's point (which goes beyond ancient sources) is a general point that needs clarification, now that it has been stated. History2007 (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It's not for Wikipedians to determine themselves if an entire discipline is biased due to the beliefs of its scholarly practitioners (or for any other reason). Such issues are pertinent to an article, with regard to due weight, only if reliable authoritative sources (which in this instance must mean authors who have studied the primary sources in depth) have made statements on the issue. Articles here should reflect the scholarly consensus (or major conflicting views within a field, or better yet, the state of the field). They can't offer original, unsupported, or insufficiently supported interpretations of the field. Thus, if the beliefs of scholars within the field is an issue this has probably been addressed within the field itself, or minimally, by reputable scholars in related disciplines.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Excuse me??? Exactly why would I be blocked for the opinion that Christians are biased about the existence of Jesus? Why don't we cite a bunch Hindu scholars and state as fact that the world was created by Brahma? Do reputable scholars disagree on whether the world was created in 7 days? If you give equal weight to Christian theologians, then yes they do. I sure hope Wikipedia does NOT give equal weight to Christians on that matter, and does not claim it is a matter of dispute whether the world was created in a week. Take your threats of blocks and shiove off. Minorview (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Precisely my view. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The question of the existence of an historical figure called "Jesus" is not equivalent to offering proof for the existence of god/a god. It's a historical question, answered in the realms of probability, on the basis of available evidence. The article must reflect the conclusions of the field. If you have the presumption that the field is biased as a whole in its general conclusions then you need reliable sources to make that point for you. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Religious scholars are not authoritative sources on the creation of the world; they are authorities on religious beliefs about the creation of the world. It's not a question here of their religious beliefs but of where their proper and recognised expertise lies. This is a historical question, not a metaphysical one, addressed by historians. Their beliefs are central to the discussion only if reliable sources – that is ones with historical expertise who have consulted the available evidence and have the competence to do so – have made it so.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It is also often a question of opposing sources, e.g. in global warming there are two groups of professors who debate the issues. Multiple requests have been made for a list of opposing scholars on the talk page, and have to date been met with general silence. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC) If sources are not produced (which should be a trivial task) there's no argument to be had and editors who behave in this way, are in my opinion, detrimental to content production (which is the primary goal here, no?). Dissension in a field is not unusual as most scholarly fields are organised around points of real scholarly contention. Establishing the weight of various viewpoints in a field, unless very marginal, is often a problem and solutions naturally veer close to original research. You really need expertise to address these issues (i.e. map the field adequately).FiachraByrne (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Please see the talk page. Multiple requests have been made for a "single opposing professor" and none has been produced. There is no debate at all about the shortage (or indeed lack of) of opposing sources. The discussions produced are "arguments from first principles" not about sources. History2007 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC) HiLo48 has been blocked before for what were, in my opinion, reasons lacking almost entirely in merit and where he was largely correct on content issues. Without prejudice to their contributions elsewhere, character assassination, or derision of their point of view, I would ban both HiLo48 and Humanpublic from that article and talk page in a heartbeat. Their talk page contributions are not forwarding content production and are made without regard to the sources. There's simply no way they should have anything to do with writing this encyclopedic article. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Actually I would personally not support suddenly tarring and feathering these users without proper warning, at this point. HiLo has been far less argumentative, and had in fact left the discussion when the current brouhaha started; and he was totally upfront that he knew there are no opposing sources. And HiLo is not a WP:SPA by any measure. I think he was just probably expressing his frustration with the way the world works. So a mild reminder to him is all that may be needed. Humanpublic is, however, a WP:SPA with no other apparent focus or contribution. I would support a warning to Humanpublic to read WP:V, WP:Forum and WP:HEAR for real and only discuss things when he has exact sources that support his position. History2007 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The more I look at WP the more ban-happy I become – which is probably why I wouldn't make a decent admin. Yet, I think there is an argument for a more liberal use of relatively short, non-stigmatising topic bans in a range of non-productive content disputes. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) And blocking/topic banning, becomes a viable option, in my opinion, when an editor's contributions to an article or article talk page are detrimental to decent content production. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC) This is easy Atheist sources, and sources of non-Christian religions, cannot be used, they are biased. Ohh, do not forget that the world is flat. Sources that argue otherwise are biased because they believe the world in round. Also, sources about Earth and Universe must be removed because they have a conflict of interest being as they are on Earth and in the Universe. We can go in circles all day long, but it comes down to this: present a source that demonstrates that Christian scholars have a bias. Anything other than that is WP:FORUM and a pointless discussion since it will never be included in the article until we have a source. It's as simple as that. Why are we arguing? 2/3 if the world's population are not Christians, finding a source to support the opposing viewpoint should not be hard.--v/r - TP 22:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. History2007 (talk) Wikipedia does not automatically accept as fact news about North Korean from that country's own official news agency. We almost certainly don't need a source to tell us to make this decision. We do it because it's common sense. Similarly here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Really? Demonstrate it. Where has it occurred that a North Korean source was plainly wrong, there were no opposing sources, and we ignored that source anyway? You can't, we use sources that oppose those viewpoints; which there are plenty of.--v/r - TP 00:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) If the N. Koreans say that they are manufacturing all the iPads that Apple sells, and no US news agency, nor Apple Computer itself disputes that, is that news rejected? But this is again, most probably not an ANI issue. But this type of issue has been discussed on RS related ages a few times, and the example that I recall was that if a professor writes: "most scholars agree that the global warming debate is over" there will be serious protests from the opposing side, unless the opposing side has already conceded the debate and there is no scholar left to oppose the statement. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) But there are reams of sources that contextualise and interpret offical North Korean government statements for their underlying meaning, treat their official pronouncements as unreliable, and make statements of the same determination. Are there equivalent, knowledgeable, authoritative sources that treat this field in a similar way? Do you in fact think that the scholarship in this field is of equivalent authority to and has a analogous position with regard to evidence of that of the North Korean government? Has anyone credibly characterised the field in this way? FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Actually HiLo has readily accepted that there are no opposing sources, from the star. His complaint is about the world at large, it seems. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic at hand

Threads on Talk:Jesus will be archived 3 days after the last comment by Miszabot. If editor(s) don't like or find Humanpublic's et. al. arguments unconvincing, I highly recommend they ignore them. If editor(s) feel specific editors are being disruptive they should first politely address the matter on user, not article, talk. If editors truly feel additional steps must be taken, they could bring them here -- but I encourage anyone contemplating such action to have their ducks in a row and bring diffs not rhetoric. Slapping archive tags on conversations with pointy comments about editors is not a good move, not actually supported by written policy, and is itself disruptive. NE Ent 00:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring user comments may work at times. But there have been cases in Wikipedia where some users have relied on silence amounts to consent arguments when they have been ignored. So quite ironically this goes back to the no opposing sources issue, and the silence of Apple Computer about news reports that all iPads are manufactured in N. Korea, just discussed above. But I would prefer to sign off from this discussion now, before it takes up the rest of my life... History2007 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look at Humanpublic's contributions, I see no evidence whatsoever of disruption to the Jesus article. His replies have generally been polite and courteous, unlike some of the editors who've disagreed with him. The case of him going to 3RR has a very strong sense of "go ahead, punk, make my day" from those who filed it. Therefore I utterly endorse Ent's comments above that if you don't like Humanpublic's opinions on talk, and if you think he sounds like a broken record, but is not damaging the article, to simply ignore him. I appreciate patience has been tested, but losing your rag over it will never work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But the accusation here was the primarily problem with Humanpublic's comments have been they are forum or blog like comments i.e. have nothing to do with improving the article. In that case, I don't see how 'silence amounts to consent' comes in to it or matters. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Ent, although I would be less soft: moves like this one are highly disruptive, plain and simple. Humanpublic is free to express opinions and concerns in the talk page, especially if supported by sources, even if they are minority views, and noone is allowed of misleadingly marking them as vandalism. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP editor removing inter-wiki links

Can someone take a look at 109.48.79.85's contributions? He is removing interwiki links for what seems to be a dubious reason, but I cannot be certain of that. Someone with more knowledge of such things should take a look. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking too deep, with the release of Wikipedia:Wikidata, interlanguage links on en.wikipedia are redundant, unless they aren't already on Wikidata. Not sure if that's the issue here, but just wanted to make sure that was spoken :) gwickwire^talk_edits 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the editor's improving the project here. The only concern would be if he's removing them from pages that don't contain a link to edit the links in the side bar. Handy Mandy in Oz is an example of one where the links shouldn't be removed. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I am glad I came here, because none of what you guys are saying is at all familiar to me. My question now is whether I should revert my reversions of his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change much on the page, but if I were you I'd self revert. Just in case the IP didn't make sure, check to see that the interlanguage links aren't removed from the sidebar afterwards (or check beforehand by seeing if the edit link exists under the interlanguage links). More information on the interlanguage links can be seen at WP:VPP#Are interlanguage links unnecessary now?, that page also says that it's best not to remove the links all at once, but rather to remove them from an article when you are editing it anyways. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The key thing to check is that all interwiki links are now on Wikidata. To check this, enter the title of the article in question into the search box at http://www.wikidata.org and go to the article's Wikidata page. There you see all interwiki links known to Wikidata. In simple cases (all articles are precisely equivalent), you can simply add any missing interwiki links. (Typically these are interwiki links added since December.) I don't know what to do in more complicated cases. Hans Adler 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic image change request - red head

Hello all,

I am unsure on the exact rules and regulations surrounding image selection for wiki topics, but I bring to you my humble request.

I have a photo here of my friend 'Mat' http://fitboost.co.uk/images/red_head.jpg

You will notice he is pretty much the very definition of 'red head'. Would it be possible to change the current photo of a grimacing woman with red(ish) hair for this picture of my friend?

Yours faithfully

Oliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.70.158 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream;

Hi Oliver! Thanks for the offer. It looks to me like a good example.

• Do you own the rights to the image? (Basically meaning, "did you take it yourself"?)
• If you do, does your friend agree with you using it?
  

Probably the best path would be to start by uploading the picture to the Wikimedia Commons. (The link will explain what that Wikimedia Commons is about.)

The next step would be to discuss on the "talk page" of Red hair whether the picture should be used in the article.

If it's agreed that it should be used in the article, then you can put in a link to where the image on the Wikimedia Commons, and the picture will be included in the article.

That's just one way to go about things, and there may be better ways. For questions like these, the best place to ask is at the Wikipedia Help desk. I've been on Wikipedia a while and I ask questions there quite often.

Hope this helps! Peter aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: And (since if I don't mention some very vaguely-related literary or artsy what-not, people will think my account has been compromised) I also suggest that you read the Wikipedia article Elizabeth Siddal.

• Per WP:HOTTIE, I prefer the current image at that article. Tarc (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't make get me Shakespearean on your ass, Tarc.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Would this be considered a legal threat?

It looks like one to me, in the edit summary.[132] (For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership.) I warned the editor User talk:70.22.150.151. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Upper Crust Pizzeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:70.22.150.151 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please keep an eye on Upper Crust Pizzeria. The IP editor listed above removed about 5k from the article with the note: "For questions, please contact UC Acquistion Co LLC's attorney, Christopher Panos. This page is being monitored for libel, and the new ownership will take appropriate steps to address those contributing to libeling the new company ownership." Diff[133]. GabrielF (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• That is absolutely a legal threat. IP blocked. Thanks! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

They took out valid, sourced information calling it libelous (which it was not). A NLT block is in order here. The fact that their company may have made some mistakes doesn't mean they can just erase it from the internet. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a new set of IPs are involved now. I just blocked 24.221.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for edit warring. 24.221.237.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is also active currently. I have done a little fact-checking to make sure that the IPs didn't have a point; however, I found that the claims in the article are backed up by sources. I don't think I'm sitting too close to the situation to do it, but more apparent-socks come in to join the situation, I'm going to protect the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with the situation from living in the area. The IP editor says: "The Upper Crust LLC filed for bankruptcy, but the brand did not. You continue to include libelous material that is factually incorrect. The brand never filed for Chapter 11, and is under new ownership"[134]. I am looking at a Boston Globe article from January 8 that says: "Upper Crust filed for bankruptcy protection in October with at least $3.4 million in debts, and about $1.6 million in claims have been filed by government agencies for unpaid meals taxes, along with back wages and damages owed to workers." I don't quite understand what the IP is saying. I'm not certain how a brand can file for bankruptcy. A new company, UC Acquisitions bought the leases to four restaurants. According to the Globe that company has some ties to founder Jordan Tobins but Tobins and UC Acquisitions claim it is not Tobins money that is being used. We should probably change the owner listed in the infobox. Even if there was some merit to what the IP is saying about bankruptcy, that does not explain the other deletions, related to labor issues, that are well-sourced. GabrielF (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, brands don't file for bankruptcy protection, companies do. It is the job of the bankruptcy trustee to reorganise the entity which can involve selling off its assets, including its brands. It would appear that in this case the brand was sold to a new owner. Why yes, IAAL, how did you guess?--ukexpat (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP notified of this discussion.[135] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a two-year-old claim by anonymous employees that the operation is being investigated by customs and immigration. It was not confirmed by the agency and denied by the target, the claim has not been repeated by the Globe subsequently and article reporting the allegation has been removed from the Boston Globe website.

Also, could someone please check the source supporting this?

In early 2012, further allegations of criminality surfaced, as Jordan Tobins was placed on leave after using company funds for personal expenses.

• Abelson, Jenn (June 19, 2012). "Upper Crust accused of scheming on pay". The Boston Globe. Retrieved November 16, 2012.

(I've used up my free monthly quota). I looked at the article earlier and mentally noted that "criminality" seemed a bit over the top. Also, they're eight months old, and they're allegations of criminality - not charges, not convictions - is this OK per our biographies of living persons policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the last query about BLP concerns to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Upper Crust Pizzeria, since that's the more appropriate forum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the relevant quote from the article: "Marcus’s about-face comes in the middle of a fierce battle for control of the gourmet pizza empire between Tobins and co-owners Joshua Huggard and Brendan Higgins. The pair recently sued Tobins, accusing him of charging the company more than $750,000 in personal expenses, including the purchase of a plane, and placed the founder on administrative leave in March." GabrielF (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Tuscar

• Tuscar is a relatively new editor, and his sole edits so far have been related to the Lambretta SX 200 article.[136] These have consisted of adding a non-reliable link in, first to the external links section, then into the article itself - which has been reverted by Mr.choppers and Biker Biker in addition to myself. He's been warned by all 3 of us about the link, but the major issue is his personal attacks and attempt at ownership of the article, accusing Biker Biker of censorship[137], and, to myself, been incredibly rude (in the process, attacking Biker Biker and Mr.choppers as well).[138]. Can someone have a word with him please? I don't want to get involved in this guy's tirades any further. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Biker Biker posted a WP:NPA warning, I'll wait to see what Tuscar's response is. (I was too tired last night to really think about things further) Lukeno94 (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Paavo273 Complaints

Nothing of substance here likely to lead to admin action, except perhaps a boomerang. OP warned by MBisanz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Complaint: Abuse of administrative position by Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page & request for relief. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page 1. Complainant User:Paavo273 (C-Pvo) requests AdminFutPerf's self-described "unusual" special findings and editorial content rulings, especially of "consensus of sources"--all made under color of administrative authority[b ] constituting gross, prejudicial, reversible error--be rolled back; that AdminFutPerf’s subsequent dictating the terms of discussion [c ] in Talk:Continuation War in violation of Wikipedia dispute resolution policy be noted as a violation or stricken; that ordinary WP dispute resolution process be allowed to run its course; and, finally, that AdminFutPerf be blocked from further rulings on Finno-Soviet and Baltic issues, as AdminFutPerf has shown clear bias in favor of the Sovietist perspective, (Why is there a WP article for Russophobia but not Finnophobia?), while expressing disdain for or ignoring the conventional Western view, which is clearly represented in the Continuation War article alongside the Finnish and Sovietist perspectives. Another reasonable possibility is that AdminFutPerf merely repeated false allegations of others and did not even read the article. 2. C-Pvo respectfully requests to know: Is there a prior connection between AdminFutPerf and User:Paul Siebert and/or between AdminFutPerf and User:YMB29? 3. C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo [c ] (bottom half of new diff. paragraph) which appears to establish a new, low standard for WP research and to send a message to a particular user that a Google keyword search any eight-year-old can perform is that new standard. Real research, C-Pvo humbly suggests, is based on possessing and understanding the entire scholarly source or a substantial part of it enough to have understood and analyzed the reasoned basis for what you are citing. The CW article, C-Pvo asserts, for the most part reflects serious scholarly research (as far as can be determined at present) whereas the lists of sources cited in the talk page, especially the list by YMB29 [z] like the original citation for the “Soviet victory” result [u] are only bits and pieces. 4. If the disinterested WP administrative community should find AdminFutPerf's "unusual" editorial content rulings authorized by WP administrative procedure, C-Pvo respectfully requests in the alternative, firstly, that AdminFutPerf specifically OUT these alleged supporting sources and that thence a full impartial hearing be conducted by the disinterested admin. community within the framework of the sourced CW article content that has been hashed out over time, rather than merely simplistic count-up-my-sources treatment now endorsed by AdminFutPerf. (In this case, about half the mini-cites, i.e., “Finnish surrender” are unsupportable given the undisputed facts in the article. [y] The remaining mini-cites from the Google search stating Soviet Victory refer to a contention covered in depth in the article, [x] , [w] , [e] , etcetera.) 5. C-Pvo argues (and has argued), e.g., [ee], [ff] , that the infobox is not a proper area for separate research, especially when a body of vetted, well-established sources exists in the article. Complainant would especially appreciate an administrative ruling on this particular issue. 6. Finally, C-Pvo, the complainant, alternately avers, in direct response to AdminFutPerf's "unusual" special findings and rulings, that when taken as a whole, contrary to Admin. FutPer’s snap rulings, the CW article does not depict a Soviet victory as against Finland, unless at most a very narrowly qualified one. Soviet treatment of very many other, nearby countries as discussed in subsection “Buffer Zones” [j], (even as filtered through the Soviet perspective) and Assessment [e] are especially telling of the entire lack of any unqualified Soviet victory when placed in context. (See also, especially, introduction [f] and background [g] as well as [h] and Motives… [i] ). The article does not allege unqualified Soviet victory. 7. No Consensus on what victory even meant: Many reputable sources (See also Winter War) cited in the CW article (including [e] ), state the USSR had like intentions for Finland as for the many other whole countries whose entire “absorption” or enforced communist puppet-government installation the USSR “required” as buffer zones. [j], As such, the very meaning of victory is not settled, and therefore in the humble opinion of the complainant, unqualified victory objectively cannot stand as a result. The infobox template guideline [r] specifies the result as optional and allows, “In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used.” Complainant respectfully requests admins and other discussion-participants identify any personal connection or bias regarding the subject matter. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for injunction, rollback and blocking from Finn-Soviet and Baltic articles of User:Paul Siebert 1. I, Complainant User:Paavo273 (Pvo) request revert/rollback for User:Paul Siebert’s edits to the Winter War article [z] and others, whereby Paul Siebert, apparently taking heart from AdminFutPerf’s self-described “unusual” ruling (alleged in separate complaint above to be gross error), has been changing other wars’ infobox results (on the basis that the rules allow no other choice) with no discussion whatsoever on the relevant wars’ talk pages, e.g., see Talk:Winter War. I further request a block against Paul Siebert from editing privileges for all Finno-Soviet wars, battles, and related issues, as he has shown a clear contempt, bordering on anti-Finnishness, for the mainstream Finnish and non-Marxist Western positions. 2. Paul Siebert complained and threatened me for changing and declining to self-revert an infobox result to the Continuation War, even though my change had followed discussion among other parties at Talk:Continuation War on the exact subject. 3. It is my contention that Paul Siebert’s discussion in Talk:Continuation War and subsequent edits misrepresent the infobox result parameters; it amounts to forcing a cookie-cutter approach on the infobox that was never intended. See template [a] (“result optional”) and discussion [b] In addition, User:YMB29 cites a lack of consensus among the infobox developers [c], which if still current, makes it only a nonbinding guideline altogether. In either case the infobox parameters clearly state result as optional. 4. Despite all this, Paul Siebert, taking license, in part from AdminFutPerf’s decision (“[W]e can renew this discussion, and follow the way outlined by Fut. Perf.”) [d] (bottom of diff), which I am seeking to have set aside in a separate complaint above, still insists, "[I]f you think the infobox page is misleading, try to fix it first. Unless it has been done, let's stisk (sic) with the standards.” [e] 5. Another point of complaint: Why is Paul Siebert quoting in Talk:Continuation War a long reference [g] (bottom of diff), in any event contradicted by the article, about the Winter War? These are two discrete conflicts, whose main common thread is Finland trying to preserve its existence. (See Winter War and separately Continuation War.) 6. Paul Siebert has noted the “we” Wikipaedians guideline and admonished others to focus on content and not personalities [f] but has himself been willing to use ad hominem attacks [g]; practically in the same breath as promoting "our" Wikipedia, alleges to know as prevaricating darkness another user's heart, ("Please, do not pretend you didn't oppose to (sic) the word "victory" in the infobox before.")[h], never mind that "limited victory" is all this other user has ever argued for,[1], [2], [3], etcetera, in fact long before Paul Siebert entered the discussion.; and has shown a general unwillingness to see another side. Such rigid inflexibility and hyper-adherence to perceived WP procedures, assuming good faith by Paul Siebert, appear to evince an overt hostility to those who would disagree with him, and possible personal issues with Finnishness as a whole. Paul Siebert appears to not be satisfied that the Sovietist side is well represented in the article. 6. Finally, while it’s not important that English WP users' English be perfect or even good, it should be coherent. The English of Paul Siebert is normally excellent, but I would propose a change to the following (I thought at first he was talking about a political party) [h], perhaps something like, "Anticipating possible accusations of bias (He anticipated aptly), I would inform pro-Finnish users that I intend (or am intending) to fix such errors in other articles too." Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for Reversal of Warning issued to User:Paavo273 as abuse of administrative discretion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Paavo273 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise I respectfully request that the warning issued to me for “disrupting” by AdminFutPerf be rescinded. I contend that AdminFutPerf's and User:Paul Siebert's actions described in this and my other complaints demonstrate either Finnophobia or naked promotion by illicit means of their own political bias. I humbly allege that acting either coincidentally [aa ] or in concert users AdminFutPerf and Paul Siebert (See separate complaints) have themselves disrupted the talk page and short-circuited the established WP:dispute resolution process. I incorporate by reference my two above complaints, one against AdminFutPerf and the other against Paul Siebert, as grounds to rescind the warning. Additionally, I humbly contend that the warning issued by AdminFutPerf, later declared to be based on “walls of text,” “extraneous material,” and “filibustering” is false and a bald attempt to silence views opposed to his own. At this hyperlink is my longest copy: [bb ] and there were a couple other shorter ones also exactly on point, where YMB29 was complaining to his mediator in a related case about the Continuation War talk page and another where YMB29 and another user were arguing about the same exact infobox result. (Now that I know how to use hyperlinks, I realize it would be simpler and shorter to provide one of those for each of the diffs on the other pages, but there was absolutely no mass copying or filibuster, an outrageous and as to my alleged malicious intent, also libelous accusation. The entire CW talk page immediately prior to AdminFutPerf’s cleanup, including the my alleged misdeeds can be seen if you scroll down from this diff.: [rr ], and I request impartial, disinterested administrative review. As to the defamatory claim of filibustering, a review of the relevant talk page diff [rr ], will reveal, on the contrary, that despite a fusillade of false rules violation accusations directed at me from user YMB29 and later Paul Siebert, I whenever possible assumed good faith and tried to steer the discussion back to content, just e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. On his user page AdminFutPerf boasts, “This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level," and he links to an “article” ( [ss] ridiculing, mocking people who disagree with his rulings. Complainant Pvo would submit that if this decision by AdminFutPerf and the subject of the other complain against him are indicative of his body of actions as a whole, there are good grounds to complain of rogue administrative abuse. If he wishes to be the next Rupert Murdoch or Katherine Graham or even a mini-Murdoch, he should start his own media empire rather than commandeering Wikipedia. I do not believe the Libertarian über-genius internet innovator from the American South state of Alabama had this in mind when he created the people’s encyclopaedia, not either a fawning Sovietized infobox version of history that contradicts article sources, nor a short-circuiting of dispute resolution processes (See my separate complaints.) I wonder how many other users have become victim to preemptive scorn and ridicule from this administrator pushing his own agenda. I have no history of administrative sanctions, and a general caution to the group against edit-warring would have in my opinion been appropriate. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I hope you are kidding, yes? The Banner talk 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Being that this user posted three consecutive threads here (which I had to divide into subsections), calling for the relief of adminship of a respected sysop and the block of another user; I don't think this report will be taken very seriously at all. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) tl;dr much? Anyone wish to summarize? Just from what I can see (not looking at diffs), Paavo is over-exaggerating quite a bit... gwickwiretalkedits 01:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Plus, when you realize that there wasn't anything really bad done by any of the two complained about, it's only a content dispute. gwickwiretalkedits 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I stopped reading when I got to this: "C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo". I would humbly request that you format your complaint in concise, plain English. It would make it much easier on the admins here, many of whom have limited time and are not fast readers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Not just any content dispute... This has been through mediation twice, one which I presided over at MedCab, and another one at MedCom. I think it's probably in need of administrative intervention of some sort, but I'm not sure exactly what that should be as I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I have warned him at User_talk:Paavo273#Warning. MBisanz talk 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC) With your background, you could at least give some credit for the hilarious nature of the format :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My quick skim of the above chose "As to the defamatory claim of filibustering..." as the highlight. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the dispute might like to check if any topic bans should be recommended (has it gone that far?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Well, if this is a regular tactic for Paavo, it is definitely disruptive per WP: WALLOFTEXT and WP: MWOT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)My quick skim of the above gave me a headache and thoughts of storms of boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) This has already been rejected by Arbcom. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User: Ysfan redux; rangeblock likely needed

User: Ysfan, who was brought to AN/I not long ago , and indeffed by User: Bwilkins for some very nasty personal attacks. He has begun socking as User:MegaMind75, and was subsequently blocked by User: Qwyrxian. He has stated that that he has an intention to continue socking and making personal attacks (here), and thus, I believe a rangeblock is warranted. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 04:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As the target of one of the personal attacks, I think it's just better to WP:DENY oxygen to this fire. Lets not make a bad situation worse.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We generally don't through down rangeblocks in cases like this. I don't even think that most of our WP:LTA users get rangeblocks. Besides, the user is probably right in that rangeblocks would effect too many good users in the process. If a checkuser wants to investigate, they can do so, but I think the easier solution is just to block and reblock. The user is primarily interested in a single topic, so blocking socks as they come up should be simple. Even if they get another interest, the editing style is clear enough that we'll still spot them eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably one of the most unfortunate blocks overall. Had a bad day, went ape-shit over another editor, and is now persona non grata. This really didn't have to get to this point, and really doesn't have to end this way. I left Ysfan an exact way forward last week, but apparently community behaviour is not in his nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to pull out the area of denial weapon and just RBI them. Feeding him isn't going to make it any better now. They've joined the dark side so if he's not willing to help himself, then there's nothing for him here. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption from a set of dynamic IP addresses.

What can be done about this IP editor. He is obviosuly a sockpuppet and is causing me a lot of trouble. He insists on leaving his changes in place before we discuss. He can't be banned, because he is using a dynamic IP address (a different address from Vodaphone appears to be allocated to him every time he logs on), yet he is threatening me with 3RR action.

• User:212.183.140.3 (12 February 2013 - 13:00 to 13:21)
• User:212.183.140.4 (16 February 2013 - 09:32 to 09:45)
• User:212.183.140.5 (11 February 2013 - 20:08 20:42)
• User:212.183.140.38 (13 February 2013 - 13:26 to 13:31)
• User:212.183.128.129 (13 February 2013 - 17:41 to 19:56)
• User:212.183.128.192 (15 February 2013 - 11:29 to 12:47)
• User:212.183.128.207 (12 February 2013 - 11:07 & 13 February 2013 - 16:20 to 16:38 & 15 February 2013 22:32 to 23:02)
• User:212.183.128.211 (13 February 2013 - 14:01 to 14:11)
• User:212.183.128.236 (15 February 2013 - 14:03 to 16:09)
• User:212.183.128.242 (14 February 2013 - 19:25 to 19:45)

BTW, I can't inform this editor that I have placed this message as he is an editor of No fixed abode. For the record, Vodaphone uses IP addresses 212.183.*.*, giving a potential of about 64,000 addresses. The above evidence suggests that Vodaphone uses addresses 212.183.140.* and 212.183.128.* for its mobile customers, giving 510 addresses. Martinvl (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Backstory is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeFacto. Garamond Lethet
  c 13:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  •  Checkuser needed Interesting. Same address range being used in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound. We need a checkuser to make sure that we can implement rangeblocks without causing too much collateral damage.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately there is likely to be significant collateral damage. I made 10 random searches on the range in question, avoiding those that I know are associated with the editor in question. Every one of the hits showed editor activity. The one thing that I can think of is to declare that any edits to a range of IP addresses on articles of a specified category or categories are likely to be the work of a sockpuppet and may be deleted on sight. (In this case the categories would be "Category:SI units", "Category:Systems of units" and "Category:Motorways in England". Whoever undoes such work would paste a standard message on the user page. I know that this would be a new policy, but with increasing use of WiFi and I-phones, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Alternatively, this could be reported on the 3RR page and an administrator could give the agrieved editor permission to undo edits from the IP address range in a specified category as though they were sockpuppets. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If the IP range is relatively narrow (i.e. blocks of /16) and is hitting articles where there is likely to be some consistent categories, this could possibly be dealt with via an Edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@Martinvl: what exactly is the disruption that you allege here, because a cursory glance at recent edits made by some of the IPs you listed above doesn't reveal anything untoward, and using an ISP that randomly assigns IP addresses to customers from a whole range, even during one virtual session, cannot be described as such.

Also, can you show evidence that 212.183 accounts have been used to disrupt articles from each of the categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England" that you listed, because again, I see none.

I am interested because I too often edit from a 212.183 account, and I am surprised that your complaint has been accepted without any supporting evidence. 212.183.128.241 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe 'Hackneyhound block evasion' is the issue at hand. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Or should that be Factocop? Joking aside, the Hackneyhound account is notorious for using Vodafone IPs as socks. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The choice of material suggests that this is User:DeFacto, who has a history of disruption, pushing his own anti-metric point of view regardless of consensus. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The other 212.183 editor asked for evidence of disruption at categories "SI units", "Systems of units" and "Motorways in England". I take it that you do not have any, or you would have presented it. You are wasting everyone's time with your smokescreen accusations, and your agenda is very transparent. Now put up or shut up. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• DeFacto and Factocop... those names are very, very coincidental... and I don't believe in coincidences. They're using the same IPs, it seems, and have very, very similar names... Lukeno94 (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to game the anti-edit-warring rules

Editor User:Martinvl, an editor with a history of edit warring (see his talkpage!) and with 2 edit warring blocks under his belt, and who has been accused of gaming the system before to push metrication into articles, particularly articles related to the Falkland Islands, now seems to have decided for himself that the opinions of IP editors are worthless. See his edit summary on this edit where he says "Undid revision ... Reinstated text as per consensus of registered editors." That is totally unacceptable.

This seems to be part of an organised campaign to push pro-metrication POV into this and other articles too (see International System of Units where is is under a 3RR warning), despite there not being reliable sources which support it. In Metric system he is trying to apply fake dates to CIA data and then use a USENET Newsgroup post to support his POV that the CIA is wrong. Can someone please remind him that consensus includes IP users and that WP:OR and WP:VER apply in all cases, even if he and another registered user disagree. 212.183.140.48 (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• As you are on a variable IP, that comment makes sense - it's impossible to tell whether a whole load of Vodafone IPs are one person without technical data or similar things. If you're a legitimate user with nothing to hide, why not start an account to get rid of the variable IP issue? For what it's worth, I agree with 2007 being correct, having looked at the information - it's the original date. It most definitely does not fall under WP:OR. Also, questions such as "How long have you been editing Wikipedia Martinvl?" are totally irrelevant to a discussion, and if you checked out his contributions, you could answer that yourself. Martinvl is not the only editor to disagree with you, and I see no editors directly supporting you. As far as I can see, it's you that started the edit war, not him. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, in this case. But there are certainly issues in the way Martinvl deals with these situations and with the topic as a whole. I can think of several cases in my experience where his arguments and conduct have fallen very clearly the wrong side of WP:GAME, with the effect of inappropriately pushing articles to a more pro-metric position. An example would be a few months back when he insisted that geography is a science and therefore that we're not allowed to use miles (including in brackets) in any geographical context on any part of Wikipedia. Such an interpretation is only plausible based on a very selective reading of WP:UNITS, such as to override the clear intentions of that guideline. Kahastok talk 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Some responses:

@Kahastok: This is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote and I demand a retraction. My text was I am surprised at User:Wee Curry Monster changing all the units of measure of geographical-related sections. Under WP:MOSNUM, science-related topics should use SI-only and since Geography is a science (see definition in Wikipedia article)the should, in theory, be using SI only. I am not goung to push that, all that I ask is that we use the units of measure as per the sources. Martinvl (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@General: This edit is indicative that the editor in question has something to hide. Why else would he blank out the advice to editors who find th4emselves being harrassed from this address?

Martinvl (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Addbot

I think Addbot should be stopped and its recent edits reverted, see my three sections of today on User_talk:Addshore. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading the timestamps, Addbot (talk · contribs) hasn't made any edits for more than two hours, and in particular not since your first problem report less than an hour ago, so a block may not be urgently indicated, and we might be able to give the bot operator a little time to respond. In the meantime, I realise you might be feeling frustrated by seeing automated changes that you disagree with, but you shouldn't be communicating here on Wikipedia with messages like your first one: "Please let me know what you plan to do about this, or I will have to report your bot." It's not collegial, and doesn't make the bot operator more likely to respond positively. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that if the bot hasn't made any more edits like the ones I mentioned on his talkpage, and will not do so till those issues are properly addresses, then a block is not necessary.

The collegiality of my message is definitely higher than the comments I have received upon occasion on this very noticeboard, so let's not go there. In any case, I just meant to make clear that I consider the issues serious ones, and expect them to be addressed before returning to the order of the day. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know if the space addition is in favour or in contrary to AWB bots? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge AWB doesn't do this in automated edits. I am an AWB user, but not the most experienced one. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the edits and questions you have raised on my talk page. I think bringing this to ANI may have been slightly excessive as the bot had indeed stopped editing after one issue was reported earlier today. I welcome everyone else to discuss all of the points raised on my talk page on my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I propose to close this thread at this time, since the editor indeed addresses the issue on his talkpage. Which is not to say I agree with him, but there is fair discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Shankysupercool

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Reblocked. — Coren ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Shankysupercool (talk · contribs) was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation on 11 February 2013. The investigation alleged that the user was using four sockpuppet accounts to spam links to youthungama.org, a blog on Indian entertainment. All four admins participating in the investigation (Qwyrxian, Hu12, DeltaQuad, and Mailer diablo) endorsed the allegations, so the first two admins listed blocked the five accounts. Shankysupercool submitted an unblock request and within a few hours was unblocked by King of Hearts, who doubted the allegations of spamming and said that there was insufficient documentation for the sockpuppetry.

As Shankysupercool is resuming his attempts to add links to youthungama.org, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved admins could review the evidence and confirm whether Shankysupercool really was operating the sockpuppets. If so, he should be reblocked. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As the sockpuppets were confirmed by two separate checkusers, a reblock is probably called for, documentation notwithstanding. —Rutebega (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably. I thought I'd raise the matter here, though, in order to prevent a wheel war. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reblocked the sockmaster; this was clearly a {{checkuser}} block but was not marked as such so no harm done by King of Hearts, who couldn't have known. — Coren ^(talk) 19:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And on a similar note "Shankysupercool" is the owner and registrant of the website being sock spammed...--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV not being complied with; and unfair treatment of IP address user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Regarding the page Murder of Travis Alexander; the page states "murder" as a fact despite an ongoing trial that is trying to determine the circumstances surrounding the death. The accused admits killing the victim but maintains it was self defence. Since manslaughter is a probable outcome of the case; it is not NPOV to state "murder" as a fact at this time.

On the talk page we have been discussing this matter and the general consensus was up in the air but more were in favour of "death of..." than "murder of...". However, one user BabbaQ disagrees and has constantly been unable to support his position with any arguments besides saying that it should remain as "murder of.." because of a previous consensus.

He then contacted an Admin requesting that the page be semi-protected due to "IP addresses editing against consensus". The admin protected the page and I feel that this is unfair as it is just because I do not have a user account, as there is not an ongoing risk of vandalism by other ip addresses. The protection was wholly against me. I cannot see how having "murder of.." stated as a fact, and then going on to say that Jodi did kill him (which she admits doing) doesn't lead to the reader making the obvious conclusion that she murdered him. But this is not yet a fact as the trial is ongoing and Jodi maintains a position of self defence. Surely this is even a violation of "Biography of living person."

Anyway, I don't see why BabbaQ's position is favoured just because he has an account.

Thanks, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your concerns appear to have been addressed with the move of the article to Killing of Travis Alexander. dci | TALK 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• In all honesty, I think the unregistered editor has a point. The name he has suggested (arguments about how best to title the article precipitated the dispute) is likely more NPOV than either "murder" or "killing"; that said, both editors involved in the dispute could be told to cool things down. dci | TALK 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Killing of.. Is a good compromise. Even though I am of the opinion that heavy POV-pushing should not be encouraged. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, it probably works for the time being. dci | TALK 21:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I was trying to explain to the IP we should wait until the verdict and then we will know for sure. I am personally quite sure that a Murder of.. move will be made at that time. But until then Killing of.. is a good compromise.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, "killing of.." is much more accurate terminology. Thanks for your swift resolution, much appreciated! 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: of course BabbaQ it may very well be the outcome of the case, but we shouldn't write the article presuming a particular outcome and stating it as current fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just stop it now IP. It is over. And frankly I am not interested in your POV-pushing game. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of POV-pushing. You got the page protected to support your view and now that it has been rectified seem bitter. I was not POV-pushing, just didn't want a misleading title and you were equally determined of having "murder of.." remain despite consensus. Thankfully it has been resolved now, so please stop the personal attacks and lets move on. Have a good day, Yours 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Killing is clearly the move NPOV term. And IP's do get the short end of the stick around here. NE Ent 22:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

But my point has always been that Death of.. is not the correct title either. Anyway problem solved. i personally think that when the verdict come a move to Murder of.. will most likely be made so Killing of is a great compromise until then. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd think "Death of..." would be better when the accused is not saying "I did it, but it was self-defense". Since he admits there was killing, that title should be suitably neutral, even after the conviction. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Again BabbaQ, although I agree you are probably right about the eventual outcome of the case, your prediction shouldn't mean the current article should contain information that is not currently true. Jodi still maintains self-defence.

• Also, can I make a request to have the page unprotected now? As I am still unable to edit. Thanks Admins, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the conflict about the name has been resolved and the article moved, to general agreement, I have unprotected. If there's any edit-warring, I'll reprotect. (Or perhaps you will, dear reader, as I will shortly be asleep.) Bishonen | talk 00:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit filter gone awry, or just normal vandalism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Any opinion on Noahrolfe (talk · contribs)'s recent edits? Was he pasting in the blanking message himself, or was an edit filter triggering and messing up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any way this edit filter could've behaved this way. I am highly inclined to believe the user copypasted the system message presented to him, as the text is the same. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just copy/pasting the system message. Looks like clear vandalism to me.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would have assumed copy-and-pasting as well, if the 2nd and 3rd messages hadn't been tagged as "blanking". That's why I was confused. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok -- clicking through the "Tag" link showed me that is used if a substantial part of the article is blanked. That makes sense now. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated deliberate introduction of known false information into a BLP by Dervorguilla, continued after warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dervorguilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has thrice deliberately and knowingly introduced false information into Aaron Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in order to deceive editors into !voting for its deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Schwartz (2nd nomination).

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3

There is no doubt that this was done knowingly and intentionally, The editor has admitted it, as well as their motivation, here. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

User Yworo’s allegation that User Dervorguilla introduced false information is denied. -- Dervorguilla (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about knowingly false, but I could go for careless. Even the most cursory looking on IMDB suggests that two different Aaron Schwartzes are being conflated here, not to mention that the younger Schwartz was sixteen when he was supposedly playing a forensic pathologist in Suspect, which is pretty implausible. Dervorguilla, you need to lay off this campaign. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd have gone for that the first time. But the third or fourth time? After different editors pointed out the issue repeatedly? I've blocked Dervorguilla for 24hrs - hopefully enough time for them to go and read what sources there are a bit better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it; good block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boberta13531

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reporting this racist comment. Appears to be a vandalism account. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocked by materialscientist; could an admin please revdel the edit, please? NE Ent 03:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voortle

There's a herd of absurd redirects. Is it reasonable to nuke all the untouched ones? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Timestamps from 20:38, February 10, 2013 through 05:12, February 13, 2013 with the exception of South American English, which was further redirected by another user. The other ones which don't show (top) were redirected by a bot, as he chose a redirect to redirect the page to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agreed ... and nuked for ya (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP at Ajativada

User:Aoclery has been blocked indef at 14 february 2013 for abuse of editing privileges ANI-report. Since then, three IP's have been used for personal attacks and vandalism:

• User:174.1.118.185 Personal attacks at NL Wikipedia: diff one day block
• User:32.60.67.185 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff
• User:64.66.16.87 Vandalism at Ajativada: diff

I request action against these IP's, and protection of Ajativada. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967

I'm not at all happy about doing this, but I feel it's necessary to report more continuing uncivil behavior by Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who just came off a 48-hour block earlier today. Please see this thread on admin Madman's talk page and take note not only of Canoe's inappropriate thread title, but also his ongoing rude and threatening comments towards Madman, who was nothing but nice to him. I feel that Canoe's refusal, or inability, to understand why his behavior is so disruptive will only guarantee that it will continue to happen. Every time he is out of line with another editor, he claims to believe that his actions are justified because he's "right" about the particular content issue. He just doesn't seem to get it at all that the problems he's been having with other editors have absolutely nothing to do with content issues, and everything to do with his poor behavior. What makes this so sad is that I considered Canoe a wikifriend and I went out of my way yesterday to help him during his block. Please read this thread from his talk page and I think it'll give you a great idea of why I'm so concerned that he's just totally missing the point of why he's had so many problems with other editors. But though his anger, I saw the good that he's done for Wikipedia and, without him knowing it, I wrote to the admin that blocked him and had this discussion with him. In my last comment to Canoe on his talk page yesterday, I suggested that he consider taking a wikibreak or possibly even retiring because I'm so concerned that his bad temper would not be good for his health or well being, or for this project. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have stuck up for Canoe as he does do good work for the project and is helpful on BLPN, but frankly, if he wants the bot fixed he should roll up his sleeves and help fix it. Madman has gone beyond the call of duty, since he's volunteering to do this. I think most people, on receipt of an apology regarding a false positive, will take it in the intended spirit. Alternatively, we could shut off ClueBotNG until its false positive rate is thoroughly tested to be 0, while vandalism skyrockets. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie. While I'm sure the bot issue is important (I know nothing about bots haha), I'm more concerned with the way Canoe treats others. Especially when it's completely unprovoked, as in this case. On the help desk thread that triggered this situation, Canoe said, "The bot operator is very lucky I just got off a block for civility BS or my comment on her talk page would be far harsher."[139] This really needs to stop. Thanks for your input. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous ANI discussion from 3 days ago which resulted in a 48 hour block can be found here. GiantSnowman 10:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The commentary by Canoe1967 at User talk:Madman#Your bot sucks the big one! is outrageouos. Also, at WP:Help desk#why has mad bot deleted my article, the commentary is extremely unhelpful ("The bot operator is very lucky I just got off a block for civility BS or my comment on her talk page would be far harsher" diff). Madman's replies are a model that all editors should strive to follow. It is beyond me how someone can handle difficult programming problems while dealing with such obviously misguided ranting (Canoe1967 failed to even provide a clue concerning the problem—that had to be added by another user). I don't know what it would take to prevent similar rants in the future, but assuming the recent discussions regarding the user revealed a substantial problem, my recommendation is an indefinite block. We either support people (like Madman) who are doing valuable work, or we promote disruption in the hope that collaborative behavior might magically awaken in Canoe1967. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• To come from a 48 hour civility block (very lenient in my opinion) and go straight into that shows that Canoe1967 clearly does not have the correct attitude to edit here constructively. There ia a long-established pattern of incivility here, and it does not make for a collaborative project. The irony of their "What part of being civil don't you understand?" comment made me chuckle. I'm edging towards supporting an indef, but if others can provide evidence to the contrary then I am willing to change my mind. GiantSnowman 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As is often parroted, blocks are preventative and since the previous block prevented nothing, there's no reason not to escalate the block duration. Blackmane (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• At first glance, I'm not impressed by the Canoe's actions. However, I would like to see their response either here OR on their talkpage (where I'm certain someone must have tried to resolve this issue before bringing it to ANI) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Echigo mole trolling about Dougweller acting as a "meatpuppet" being enabled by a disruptive IP hopper

• 111.161.30.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• IP range: 101.0.71.0/24 [140]

Echigo mole has used what appears to be an open proxy IP from China to troll on a user talk page.[141] The first IP 111 was reported at SPI by ArtifexMayhem, who at first had guessed it might be Mikemikev and then by me at WikiProject Open Proxies. I left a commentary at ArtifexMayhem's SPI report, tagging User:111.161.30.218 as recommended by CU Deskana. Please could the ipsock be blocked, regardless of the delay in completing the proxy check?

Johnuniq left a message that the edit by 111 should be removed as an obvious posting by a banned editor, the type of edit precisely covered by a motion of arbcom relating to WP:ARBR&I. [142] In the meantime the IP hopper in the range above responded to Echigo mole's post, despite the advice offered by Johnuniq. They are the only person making use of that narrow range 101.0.71.0/24 at the moment.[143] The IP hopper repeated Echigo mole's trolling suggestion that Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was engaged in meatpuppetry.[144] Some time later, I redacted 111's comment and in addition further clarified the arbcom motion concerning such posts, in particular requesting that the post should not be restored or the disruptive trolling acted upon. The tag I placed on User:111.161.30.218 was then removed by the IP hopper 101.[145] He then restored the redacted edit of Echigo mole[146] ignoring the advice he had been offered by Johnuniq and me. Finally he posted a comment on User talk:Dougweller, directly addressing the trolling questions of Echigo mole to Dougweller.[147]

The IP hopper has been asked by multiple users to register an account, but so far has not done so. In this case their IP hopping is a way of evading scrutiny, in particular with regard to the arbcom motion. The user of the range is gaming the system to avoid being sanctioned for their obvious disruption. Accusing Dougweller in this manner is just an unsubstantiated personal attack. Perhaps the narrow range could be blocked until the unique person behind it makes a commitment to edit in a less disruptive way. Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've informed Johnuniq and Dougweller of this report. I have no easy way of informing the IP hopper. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is all a bit odd. At User talk:BlackHades the IP says "One cannot help but wonder, given Dougweller's ideas are not founded in an arbitration ruling, where did they originate? Perhaps the answer lies with his little Freudian slip in the edit summary here." Besides the fact that my comments, right or wrong, on proxy editing were an afterthought after my post on sock puppets, I am definitely not a sock or the puppetmaster of User:Guettarda who actually made the edit. I'd better go tell him about this now. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The suspicion (well, my suspicion, I don't know about the other IP's) is that your and/or Guettarda's involvement in the article talk page was canvassed privately by Mathsci, and this was the reason for your repeating of Mathsci's interpretation of the arbitration ruling, and perhaps also for Guettarda's accidental mention of Mathsci in his edit summary. I must say, Mathsci's immediately showing up and posting this thread to defend you seems supportive of the same idea. It would be a very strange coincidence if this weren't the case. If it's the case it would not necessarily be meatpuppetry, but it would be stealth canvassing. I don't claim that's the only possible explanation, but it would be helpful if you were to answer my question from BlackHades' user talk. If your familiarity with this article's history is only from watching it as you said, I would like to know how that resulted in your posting one editor's interpretation of an arbitration ruling which did not receive much support from arbitrators, rather than the actual ruling. 101.0.71.20 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

58.173.108.6

This IP address is being used by a user who some of us believe to be a long-known editor called Ali Muratovic per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Muratovic/Archive. He's apparently some sort of a Bosnian nationalist who also has a distinct hate for red links (!) and tends to be generally deletionionist. We've had him blocked him several times in the past, and every time he just comes back and continues unabated. No discussion, no nothing. He makes some amount of useful copyedits, and generally the edits are small and in largely obscure Balkan topics, so it's easy for them to stay under the typical watcher's radar. But the content of the edits is largely useless and should often be reverted as WP:ARBMAC violations, particularly on BLPs. Overall, it makes for a lot of work for everyone else, and there's no particularly obvious reason to expect them to reform. As I asked at SPI in September last year, should we employ harsher measures? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the SPI archive and the contributions of 58.173.108.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it does seem likely that the IP is a sock of Ali Muratovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), That, and the pattern of partially dubious edits (including random removals of potentially useful red links) with no edit summary and no attempt of engaging in any discussion, makes me think that a longterm block or ban might be appropriate, at least until the user begins talking to us. I've at any rate issued an ARBMAC warning.  Sandstein  13:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 meat adulteration scandal

Could somebody please have a look here? It is starting to look very close to edit warring. And the Talk Page has become quite muddled. Maybe some kind of temporary article protection is called for ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)